like watchmen, a lot of revealed in the beginning intro montage in it bruce's dad dies and says Martha while bruce watch
-
OdumC — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 12:19 PM)
Yes, I'm definitely a child. you sure called it. because I've seen enough GOOD films to know a contrived scene is weak, that makes me a child.
Do my parent's know I'm on the internet. Hmmm I would call and ask them, but they probably know since I've been getting online since there was just local BBS systems you got on with a 300/1200 baud modem. Ever hear of those? (Hint: it's long before AOL was a thing)
Sponge bob? that's your reference? no wonder you think "Martha" is brilliant writing.Thanks to Batmeh v Supermeh Yawn of Justice, the "S" now stands for Sidekick -
mettallmk — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 07:00 PM)
No, it wasn't a bit silly.
It was utterly stupid, retarded and I imagine Goyer thought it was brilliant while laying around in a room in his underwear while writing the script full of pizza grease on his fingers.
IMDB - Internet Moronic Database -
AmbienWineDiet — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 12:06 PM)
apparently its the worst line ever and the entire movie made no sense.. yet xmen apocalypse was just "mediocre".. even though 90% of that film made no sense
from multiple characters motivates being completely opposite to what they had established in the last 2 films. or just events making 0 sense in general
yet BVS is the worst -
tjlamb0518 — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 12:15 PM)
I realize based on your other replies that you're just going to lash out when you read this, but you do realize why you're getting the responses you're getting, right? WE GOT THE LINE. It wasn't some deep Kubrickian level of nuance. It was the way it was handled that made it bad. Just like most of the story telling in this. And you coming by over 6 months after it premiered thinking you're dropping truth bombs on the people who've BEEN here? And then getting pissy when you're called out on it? Come on. It was a good story idea ruined by poor story execution.
-
deadpixel128 — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 01:11 PM)
The problem is not that we don't "understand" the scene. The problem is that it's f#cking stupid.
Batman completely changes his opinion on Superman from "I have to murder this guy" to "Imma save his mom" in an instant. Superman can't f#cking explain himself until after Lois comes in. The whole reason we're watching this f#cking movie ends because of
sheer coincidence
.
The scene sucks. No matter how you explain it, it is not realistic or logical. You don't have a problem with that. Fine. I wish I could enjoy this movie, but I can't. I'm planning to get into filmmaking, and I always look at the execution of every movie I watch. I understand the intent behind the scene, but the execution is f#cking atrocious.
If you can't defend a movie without bashing another, you will be put on ignore. No exceptions. -
deadpixel128 — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 01:22 PM)
I'm talking sh!t about a widely-criticized scene and I'm somehow the one "living in a bubble?" Your insults don't even make sense.
And yes, you will be put on ignore. You don't have an argument. All you're saying is "People say this scene is bad, but I hate this other movie, so it's not bad." You're a complete f#cking moron. Go f#ck yourself.
If you can't defend a movie without bashing another, you will be put on ignore. No exceptions. -
kaine-qld — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 01:11 PM)
Xmen made noooooooooooo sense.. from the first scene to the last so nightcrawler can teleport to anywhere hes been or sees? yet cant leave the electrical cage..
Problems in other films dont excuse BvS.
But if you want to bring those films into the argument, here is the difference. BvS was bleak and boring. It offered nothing in the way of entertainment to anyone who wasnt a mindless action zombie.
Films like Xmen, Avengers, Fast and Furious, Harry Potter or Star Wars all have like able characters and scenes or moments that make the film enjoyable. BvS did not. Rest assured people will still be complaining about all of the above in some way shape or form, but in most cases the good out weighs the bad.
Now, as for the Martha moment. It makes sense. No one in the world found the scene hard to understand. But that in no way makes it clever or redeemable.
It's like a bad joke that gets explained by the teller as if the reason no one is laughing is because they didn't understand it. Its not that no one understands, its just that it isn't funny. -
OdumC — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 01:17 PM)
Best example I saw was someone spelling out a stupid joke..
Them: "Why was Six afraid of seven? because seven eight nine!"
Me ".."
Them: "Don't you get it? eight sounds like ate so six thinks seven sat down and ATE nine!!"
Me: "Oh I got it, it's just fcking stupid"
them: "But you didn't laugh, so you must not have got it."
Me: "Oh no, I really did get it, it's still just fcking stupid."
Same thing here. it was completely contrived and anyone who thinks it's "deep" and needs explaining is just admitting that they have a stunted understanding of things if they think this needs to be spelled out.
People got it just fine. it's just too fcking stupid to impress most people with an IQ over 75.Thanks to Batmeh v Supermeh Yawn of Justice, the "S" now stands for Sidekick -
ThoatWobblerMangrove — 9 years ago(October 05, 2016 01:35 PM)
Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side!
You see, standard joke structure requires a "set-up", that establishes the premise of our joke. In this case, a chicken crosses a road, and we are left to muse about his motivation. This is to be followed by a "punch line", which elicits laughter. The punch line is generally something surprising in respect to, or even subversive of, the set-up. Your expectations are pointing in one direction, but the actual punch line pulls you someplace else.
[andrewdiceclayvoice]"I was over there. but now I'm over here now!!!"[/andrewdiceclayvoice]
Now, here is where the chicken joke becomes brilliantly subversive. The listener is, presumably, a human being who has lived on earth for several years and has had functioning ears that entire time. As such, he/she is assumed to be very familiar with how jokes work. Ergo, they will generally be prepared for the "punch line" to deliver them to someplace other than the standard destination. This joke knows this. In fact, this joke
counts on it
. In effect, the punchline becomes a surprise because it is standard and bland, following exactly in the standard direction indicated by the set-up. It completely subverts the listener's expectation based on their understanding of jokes.
The magnitude of the underappreciated genius here is stunning.
By the way, my son absolutely loved the "789" joke a couple years ago. Now he's 8, though, and he's a huge fan of Brian Regan, thanks to the power of YouTube. -
AmbienWineDiet — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 03:33 PM)
apparently comparing one hero film to another hero films analysis and criticism is now ridiculous and stupid according to the haters here..
aka the entire foundation of film analysis that analyzes how genres use motifs, character types, tension, plot and other stuff.
damn these people are stupid. again comparing it to xmen apocalypse it off limits according to these sheep. -
kaine-qld — 9 years ago(October 05, 2016 01:51 AM)
Bitching about another film doesn't excuse the ones you like for being bad. No matter how much you want it to.
Im sorry you didnt like Xmen: Apocalypse. I didnt like it much either. I liked it more than BvS by a long shot but I dont think I will watch it again unless it is on TV and Im too hung over to get off the couch. -
Painbow — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 03:50 PM)
Well yes, technically it made sense but it was so badly done that it came across as dumb as sht and laughable.
If Superman had said "I'm a really nice guy don't kill me," that also would have technically made sense as a means of making Batman think twice about killing Superman but it also would have been dumb as sht.