Is There Anyone Here That DOESN'T Think CW was better than the TC of BVS?
-
Ramboman24 — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 05:22 PM)
Asa Butterfield.
Says he prefers the grit of DC's movies.
At the end of the day, I'd say I enjoy the BvS TC more than Civil War. I've just seen enough from Marvel. There are too many movies that I dislike in that franchise and it's just left a sour taste in my mouth.
I just don't care about their characters.
Make up your OWN mind. Don't be a follower.
I didn't quite nail it - Christian Bale -
Ramboman24 — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 05:26 PM)
That's what I mean. Technically, Civil War was a superior film to BvS TC but they're both so different in tone. I Just prefer BvS' style. And therefore I like it more overall. And it's not like Civil War is SO technically superior to the BvS TC that it's night and day. One just had more editing flaws than the other.
Not enough to sway my vote.
Take Suicide Squad for example, totally different tone than BvS and I hated that one. But I've seen other people say it's a better movie than BvS
Just depends on what kind of movie you like.
Make up your OWN mind. Don't be a follower.
I didn't quite nail it - Christian Bale -
-
CaptainBatman — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 05:28 PM)
I understand where you are coming from. I was a bit mixed on that myself for a while but then WS was awesome and from then on Marvel had nothing but 9 or 10s in my opinion (GOTG, AOU, Ant Man and Civil War).
-
Ramboman24 — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 05:30 PM)
AOU, Avengers and Thor 2 are the worst Marvel movies I've seen, imo. I really don't find Joss Whedon is an impressive director.
His movies are so painfully mainstream.
Make up your OWN mind. Don't be a follower.
I didn't quite nail it - Christian Bale -
SkeksisGirl — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 05:36 PM)
IMO, Civil War had the more coherent story. Not to mention more emotional stakes with the characters than in BvS:TC. We never met the current Batman, and the current Superman is VERY divisive.
With Civil War, we, the audience, has known Tony since 2008, we've known Steve and Thor since 2011, Black Widow since 2010, and Hawkeye since 2011. And the current Hulk since 2014. We've had years to get to know these characters.
Having some of the more erratic emotionally driven scenes given by Tony, fits, we know how Tony is since 2008, we know how he tends to be more emotionally driven when stress is high. This is something that has been shown to us through five movies before Civil War.
We know how Steve is never going to give up on his friends, because we've seen him be that way for four movies before this. We know the characters.
With BvS:TC we don't have ANY of that kind of background, and it doesn't work.
But that's just me.
"Silflay hraka, u embleer rah!" -
CaptainBatman — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 06:06 PM)
I like your take on Civil War and how well it emotionally resonated because of the 8 year buildup.
For me with BVS, I didn't need the years of buildup. In contrast to Civil War, this wasn't a both sides are right thing. In BVS, Batman is a villain (until "Martha"). He's a villain with good motivations. And that really worked for me, showing how dark a hero could go. It's the line right out of Harvey Dent's mouth in TDK "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain". And that's what Batfleck was. A villain. Superman was the hero. -
SkeksisGirl — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 06:10 PM)
Except that I don't see Superman as a hero in the current universe because of how badly I feel Snyder did with MoS.
I see why Batman had a hate on for Superman in this, it showed. I also think his complete 180 because of Martha was very poorly done. And don't get me started with his killing, yet having the Joker still alive and the Dead Robin's weapon being what looks like a Halberd.
Tony flipping out and attacking Steve and Bucky the second he learns that the Winter soldier killed his parents, TOTALLY in character.
Batman and Superman in BvS. Totally OOC.
"Silflay hraka, u embleer rah!" -
CaptainBatman — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 06:20 PM)
I respectfully disagree about MOS Superman. I loved it. The only un-hero like thing he did was kiss Lois and joke in the rubble of dead people which took me out of it for 2 minutes.
The Martha scene is a very controversial topic. For me though, the Martha scene was Bruce looking in the mirror and realizing that he was Joe Chill in that situation. He had realized he was the monster, the very thing he set out to destroy. His PTSD was screwing with him, which was why he was acting erratic ( WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME). He was about to kill an innocent person who had human loved ones. That's what the Martha scene did for me.
With Bruce's killing, it didn't bother me as much because I kinda understood where he was coming from and the fact that it didn't happen until the Metropolis incident.
Although I think they missed a huge opportunity with the killing. If he hadn't killed yet, it would be a buildup through the entire movie that Superman would be his first kill, which for me, would have been a better buildup. Like everything is leading up to his first kill: Superman and this will be his legacy. It would have made more sense to me. -
SkeksisGirl — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 06:37 PM)
I respectfully disagree about MOS Superman. I loved it. The only un-hero like thing he did was kiss Lois and joke in the rubble of dead people which took me out of it for 2 minutes.
And the part where he completely destroys that one guy's truck because he was humiliated. Such a great example of heroism there Clark. /sarcasm
The Martha scene is a very controversial topic. For me though, the Martha scene was Bruce looking in the mirror and realizing that he was Joe Chill in that situation. He had realized he was the monster, the very thing he set out to destroy. His PTSD was screwing with him, which was why he was acting erratic ( WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME). He was about to kill an innocent person who had human loved ones. That's what the Martha scene did for me.
Except Clark isn't innocent, he's VERY much responsible for a lot of the death and destruction that happened. So no, the Martha scene made no sense. And the 180 was WAY too abrupt.
With Bruce's killing, it didn't bother me as much because I kinda understood where he was coming from and the fact that it didn't happen until the Metropolis incident.
Batman. Does. Not. Kill.
That has been part of his psychosis for over 70 years. That is extremely OOC of the character and one of the reasons that Jason Todd was so pissed in Under the Red Hood.
Although I think they missed a huge opportunity with the killing. If he hadn't killed yet, it would be a buildup through the entire movie that Superman would be his first kill, which for me, would have been a better buildup. Like everything is leading up to his first kill: Superman and this will be his legacy. It would have made more sense to me.
See, THAT would have made sense, not a Batman that's worse than the Punisher.
"Silflay hraka, u embleer rah!" -
CaptainBatman — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 07:02 PM)
Destroying that dude's truck didn't bother me one bit. Also, it was in that scene that I knew that I would never be Superman, because if I was, I would have sent that guy flying.
Superman is pretty much innocent. He didn't cause any of the death or destruction in MOS. The World Engine and Zod did the destroying. The most that Superman did was put Zods face against the side of a building, which was only windows.
My thing with the killing was that he didn't go out of his way to kill criminals. It wasn't "Screw it, Alfred! I'm going to kill every crimnal out there! Because I'm Batman!". It was more " Screw it, Alfred. I won't try to kill anyone but if any dumb criminal stands between me and Superman, I won't try and save him". Also, remember, this is a jaded, cynical, broken, PTSD ridden, tired and somewhat psychotic Bruce Wayne who's been fighting for 20 years and lost friends and family (Robin) in his crusade that means nothing when Superman arrives in the skies. His world is shattered. His perception of reality is distorted from Superman's arrival. He's thinking that all of his years meant nothing because now
we have a all powerful alien who at any moment could snap and wipe out the planet (Knightmare). He's seen it happen in his 20 year history (Harvey, Jason Todd). The rules are gone. His no kill code is gone. He has to stop Superman at all costs before he turns. And also, it's evidenced that he hasn't been killing for a while, hence the "New Rules" scene.
It's a pretty good motivation, in my opinion. -
Ramboman24 — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 10:07 PM)
I didn't care about Superman destroying the truck. That's hardly a crime when you consider what Superman COULD do to humanity. It was years of being trash talked by people but being unable to do anything about it.
It's set up well in the film as a joke because we witness different instances of Superman being trolled leading up to when he does it. His whole life he hasn't been able to take out his frustration on people because he's far more powerful than him.
So he takes his frustration out on an object.
Big deal.
Make up your OWN mind. Don't be a follower.
I didn't quite nail it - Christian Bale -
Verdugo85 — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 12:17 PM)
The only thing you and other rabid DC fanboys care about for the DCEU is the heroes being "dark" badass, reckless, muscle-bound and action scenes but no story. Its like you want the DCEU to repeat the same mistake as Schumacker's Batman & Robin.