Batman vs. Superman: Another ode to fascism from director Zack Snyder? (comedy, actor)

[drishmael]

Originally Posted by MSWTEBO

"They still makes no sense. A film will be "trash" because an actress is too skinny? There is no correlation between actors' weight and the overall quality of a movie. Oh, well... if it makes sense to you..."

I think you can understand casting mistakes. You're choosing not to.

[AFtrEFkt]

Olga Kurylenko is another actress who auditioned for Wonder Woman, but she's shorter and more slender than Gal. She's attractive but doesn't have the right look or stature.

Elodie Yung was another hopeful, but she's been hired on as Elektra for Daredevil, which, IMO, is a better fit for her.

From a visual standpoint alone, Gal looks fantastic in the Wonder Woman suit. Gal's features offer the right blend of exotic and classical (Mediterranean-European). She's gorgeous.

[AFtrEFkt]

Originally Posted by drishmael

Yep. Donner and Singer are both far better directors. Superman actually had some compassion and humanity.

HAHAHA!! Did you just imply Singer is "far better"? Than whom? Singer is a H A C K. His movies are subpar. The original X-trilogy is aging rather poorly. X-Men: First Class is this beautifully assembled film with a great cast, a great story, and great performances, and it actually got me interested in mutants again. Then I learned Vaughn wasn't directing Days of Future Past, that The Hack was back. And, boy, did it show! I'm not interested in Age of Apocalypse one iota.

Superman Returns was a joke. At best, it's a retread, and at worst, an expensive, gimmicky film — one that proves, better than any other, that Singer is a hack. (Still don't believe me? Watch Jack the Giant Slayer.)

Everyone can whine about Superman killing Zod all they want. But in Returns, Superman gets upstaged by a guy who plays an X-Man. Never, ever forget that.

Originally Posted by drishmael

Quicksilver fans are always going to be disappointed. His treatment in Age of Ultron and Days of Future Past is as good as it's going to get. Now Cyclops, on the other hand ...

My point was that there was nothing different in tone between the two Avengers films. Nothing got lighter, nothing got darker. When Marvel says "darker," it translate to "Just kidding, but here's a consolation prize."

Originally Posted by drishmael

Yeah, characters who have already been introduced over multiple movies.

Three were not: Vision was brand new, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were only briefly glimpsed at the end of The Winter Soldier in a short, tacked-on scene that was not directed by the Russos.

Originally Posted by drishmael

Given the director, I doubt it.

How do you spell bias?

Originally Posted by drishmael

Yeah, I could see both. A blond hunk and a smart, sarcastic fella. Makes perfect sense.

That wasn't my point. Hemsworth's resumé wasn't anything to write home about. Have a look:
Chris Hemsworth - IMDb C.H. was chosen because he looked the part. (Sound familiar?)

Originally Posted by drishmael

I don't have much of a problem with any of the first three, but from what I've seen, Eisenberg isn't playing Lex Luthor.

Should he act like Kevin Spacey, I mean Gene Hackman? Eisenberg's dorky demeanor in the new trailer isn't the way he acts for the entirety of the film. It's too early to judge.

Originally Posted by drishmael

Didn't want him because of his drug/legal problems. But he's perfect for the role.

Stark wasn't never such a wisecracking Martin Riggs type in the comics. I had absolutely no problem with him in the role once I saw advance footage, but RDJ is simply not the actor I would have ever envisioned stepping into the armor. So maybe you can afford Gal and Jesse some wiggle room and see what they can do.

[mkpunk]

Singer only did X-Men, X-2 and DoFP in the X-Men cannon, all are higher accepted films of the five X-Men films and the two Wolverines I checked on Rotten Tomatoes and found those three and First Class are actually the ONLY fresh X-Men movies. So much for being a hack to the general public.

Singer's X-Men (2000) has an 81% critic rating and an 83% audience score. It also scores 64 on Metacritic.
Singer's X2: X-Men United (2003) has an 86% critic rating and a 85% audience score. It also scores 68 on Metacritic.
Brett Ratner's X-Men 3: The Last Stand (2006) has a 58% critic rating and a 62% audience score. It also scores 58 on Metacritic.
Gavin Hood's X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) has a 38% critic rating and a 59% audience score. It also scores 40 on Metacritic.
Matthew Vaughn's X-Men: First Class (2011) has an 87% critic rating and a 87% audience score. It also scores 65 on Metacritic.
James Mangold's The Wolverine (2013) has an 70% critic rating and a 70% audience score. It also scores 60 on Metacritic.
Singer's X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) has an 81% critic rating and a 83% audience score. It also scores 74 on Metacritic.

I will say, I cannot comment on Superman Returns or Jack the Giant Slayer, two other Singer films but his X films have been on point.

As for if X-1 and X-2 hold up, they don't but only because of the high quality movies we have seen like the Nolan movies (which my whole problem is people claiming they are the truest to Batman while they are really crime dramas with Batman characters used and a few nods to comic panels rather than normal people because there were several liberties taken as oppose to Tim Burton's Batman) Iron Man, Thor, First Class, Winter Soldier, Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers and Ant-Man which make any of the great movies such as the two Burton Batman films look dated. Back when they came out you had the Schumaker Batman movies, Steel, Spawn, Blade, the first Sam Reimi Spider-Man, Blade II and Ang Lee's Hulk to compare it to. Only one was better than the X-Men movies... When you have fewer good to great movies, it is easier to stand out. Next year we will see seven comic movies: two DC movies, two Marvel movies, two X-men movies and one Ninja Turtles movie.

[Mark S.]

X1 is an important movie because it started the new era of good comic book movies. It showed Hollywood that you can do a super hero movie that remains relatively faithful to the source material that appeals to a wide audience. The movie has some problems, most due to the fact that Singer had about 1/10th of the budget he needed to pull off this movie. But he made it work.

X2 is still one of my favorite super hero movies. It has its flaws, but all in all, it's a great super hero flick.

Without the success of X1 and X2, there would have been no IRON MAN and no Marvel movie universe.

[AFtrEFkt]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

X1 is an important movie because it started the new era of good comic book movies. It showed Hollywood that you can do a super hero movie that remains relatively faithful to the source material that appeals to a wide audience. The movie has some problems, most due to the fact that Singer had about 1/10th of the budget he needed to pull off this movie. But he made it work.

X2 is still one of my favorite super hero movies. It has its flaws, but all in all, it's a great super hero flick.

Without the success of X1 and X2, there would have been no IRON MAN and no Marvel movie universe.

Singer's budget issues notwithstanding, his own limitations as a director are very transparent. Most of the actors give serviceable performances (solid, nothing amazing), but the action isn't very good. Singer's action is always very stiff. Like Whedon, he lends this "made-for-TV" feel to his pictures.

Actually, Blade started the "new" modern era of comic book films. Schumacher's offenses were just about wrapped. Remember, Marvel had had a fire sale due to their bankruptcy woes, and Fox and Sony snapped up, respectively, the X-Men and Spider-Man universes and all the peripheral characters intrinsic to them.

The advent of the MCU with Iron Man was spurred by, well, basically everything right before it: three movies apiece for Blade movies, the X-Men, and Spider-Man films — plus Nolan's reboot of Batman. Even Superman had gotten another try.

But, more than anything, it was Spider-Man's massive success, which left the X-punks in the dust. That's when they went, "Look, we have got to try something!"

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt

Singer's budget issues notwithstanding, his own limitations as a director are very transparent. Most of the actors give serviceable performances (solid, nothing amazing), but the action isn't very good. Singer's action is always very stiff. Like Whedon, he lends this "made-for-TV" feel to his pictures.

I don't disagree. But ...

All that and more is true about Nolan's action scenes. Despite all the things he did so well in his Batman trilogy, the fight scenes are incomprehensible, unexciting, and unengaging.

A good fight scene needs 2 vital components: You have to care about those involved, and it has to be clear what is going on. Nolan can pull off the first element. In the second he fails completely in every scene.

[AFtrEFkt]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

I don't disagree. But ...

All that and more is true about Nolan's action scenes. Despite all the things he did so well in his Batman trilogy, the fight scenes are incomprehensible, unexciting, and unengaging.

A good fight scene needs 2 vital components: You have to care about those involved, and it has to be clear what is going on. Nolan can pull off the first element. In the second he fails completely in every scene.

Yet the closing throwdown in The Dark Knight, where Batman takes on both the Joker's goons (and his dogs) while simultaneously rescuing hostages from being accidentally ventilated by the SWAT troops, is a thoroughly engaging sequence. It was an incredible thing to watch in the theater, because there was nothing like it at the time in a CBM.

I loved The Winter Soldier's action choreography, and overall they definitely one-upped Nolan's, but it's also very linear. That's the thing about Nolan: he doesn't depict things in a patently linear fashion, and in the case of The Dark Knight, it worked.

The main complaint about the fight between Batman and Bane is stunt-Batman's employ of the Keysi system.

[AFtrEFkt]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

Singer only did X-Men, X-2 and DoFP in the X-Men cannon, all are higher accepted films of the five X-Men films and the two Wolverines I checked on Rotten Tomatoes and found those three and First Class are actually the ONLY fresh X-Men movies. So much for being a hack to the general public.

Not the first time the masses have liked crap. Who's buying all those One Direction albums?

Yep, First Class is the highest-rated of all of them. NOT directed by Singer. But RT ratings don't mean anything to me. I know crap when I see it.

Originally Posted by mkpunk

I will say, I cannot comment on Superman Returns or Jack the Giant Slayer, two other Singer films but his X films have been on point.

Have a gander and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by mkpunk

As for if X-1 and X-2 hold up, they don't but only because of the high quality movies we have seen like the Nolan movies (which my whole problem is people claiming they are the truest to Batman while they are really crime dramas with Batman characters used and a few nods to comic panels rather than normal people because there were several liberties taken as oppose to Tim Burton's Batman)

You're really hanging on to that, huh? A "few nods"? More than a few, buddy. More than a few.

Originally Posted by mkpunk

Iron Man, Thor, First Class, Winter Soldier, Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers and Ant-Man which make any of the great movies such as the two Burton Batman films look dated. Back when they came out you had the Schumaker Batman movies, Steel, Spawn, Blade, the first Sam Reimi Spider-Man, Blade II and Ang Lee's Hulk to compare it to. Only one was better than the X-Men movies...

Are you referring to the time period up to 2003 (X2) or are you including 2006 (X3)? If you're stopping at 2003, Blade and Spider-Man both soundly kick Singer's X-flix in the nuts.


Never mention Spawn again. That was a complete waste of time. One of the biggest disappointments I've ever experienced while sitting in a theater.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt

Not the first time the masses have liked crap. Who's buying all those One Direction albums?

Yep, First Class is the highest-rated of all of them. NOT directed by Singer. But RT ratings don't mean anything to me. I know crap when I see it.

Show your work, I gave the critic ratings for those movies. All of the Singer movies are certified fresh according to critics.

Have a gander and you'll know what I'm talking about.

I nearly did with Jack but most re-imagined fairy tales suck anyway.. Superman, I rented but never watched as I couldn't even get through Superman 1.

You're really hanging on to that, huh? A "few nods"? More than a few, buddy. More than a few.

It is as based on Batman as Age of Ultron is on Ultron stories, cherry-picking. As I said, to call that loss depiction the closest thing to a Bat movie is a bit of a lie.

Are you referring to the time period up to 2003 (X2) or are you including 2006 (X3)? If you're stopping at 2003, Blade and Spider-Man both soundly kick Singer's X-flix in the nuts.

I went by the Singer films because X-Men: The Last Stand is only kinda watchable due to how they butcher the Phoenix Saga. As far Blade goes, I own it but I am not a fan and haven't seen the sequels yet. Spider-Man was better than X-Men and I still hold Spider-Man 2 in the higher end of any comic book movie I have seen (above even Days of Future Past.

Never mention Spawn again. That was a complete waste of time. One of the biggest disappointments I've ever experienced while sitting in a theater.[/quote]

It is a comic book movie that did indeed come out at that point so why not mention it? Me, I personally liked it. I won't hold it in the reverence I do Captain America, Spider-Man and X-Men (and more so their sequels) but it is a good movie. I wasn't old enough to see it in theaters...