Yeah, I am in much the same boat. Such is the life of a boring man. The only thing I can report is that I am looking forward to seeing Batman v Superman next week.
That looks like it will be either really good or really bad. I'm hopeful, though.
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:54 pm
There certainly seems to be a fair amount of hype building over it. Me, I am curious more than anything else. In a week, that curiosity will be sated- goor or ill.
Still, nice to see DC try to take on Marvel's film dominance.
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:32 pm
Yoder
Still, nice to see DC try to take on Marvel's film dominance.
Money is to be made, old friend. DC has watched Marvel take all the risks and reap all the rewards. Now they have a whole new universe to exploit for cash.
On a side note, despite today at work being as enjoyable as a bag of boiled bungholes, I learned something interesting. Our local drive in managed to procure a pair of films to show this weekend that I was not expecting. A dual feature of BvS followed by Deadpool. At $8 per adult for both, I cannot pass that up. Sure, I had seen Deadpool before, but a second go would be most welcome!
True, I should never underestimate the motive of profit.
That's a great price for a double feature. Enjoy!
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:14 pm
We live in a capitalist society, where everything is for sale, and we demand the dollar above all things. Never underestimate greed or monetary impetus, my friend.
Yeah, despite the horrific reviews BvS is getting, I will be watching it tomorrow. It used to be "this will be fun," but now it is more "is it really that bad?"
Given the immediate hatred the internet had for it from the moment it was announced (as well as the internet having very poor consensus opinions in general), I have little reason to believe that the attitude toward the movie was unbiased. So, how was it?
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:38 pm
Spoilers, if you read it, it's on you.
Overall, the film was not bad. Not great, but not bad. Much of the money it is making is from people finally getting to see a big-budget attempt at building the DC universe. It was not flawless. Personally, I hated how many dream sequences were put in to show that Batman was borderline psychic in his dreams. I also disliked how there is no denying that bats outright kills several people in the film. Never hand-to-hand, but in his vehicles? He has no respect for life. Superman was very wooden to me, and frankly meh. Wonder Woman was a show-stealer, she was magnificent, and I believe the highest point of the movie. Her polar opposite was Lex.
Lex rant:
There exists a mentality to Luthor, and a reason there was a commonality among the portrayals in the past. Luthor was a character that cared little for the boundaries of ethics and wanted to make himself the richest and best possible. Superman was a being that represented a lack of limitation, and by birth was able to surpass everything on earth effortlessly. That was the impetus for their conflict, which escalated exponentially. That is Lex Luthor.
Whatever character was put in BvS was completely different. He was intelligent, manipulative, and rich- but that was where the similarities ended. This character was chaotic, neurotic, and had his head stuck in ideology far deeper than others. He continually referred to large concepts such as God, angels, devils, and referred to the heroic characters not by their moniker, but by their iconography. "The Bat" instead of Batman, etc. The casual way he attempted to murder Lois Lane only proves the chaotic nature of the character, vastly different than the concept of Lex Luthor. I strongly dislike this portrayal, and frankly consider that the lowest point of the film.
The critics on Rotten Tomatoes have the film at 28%. That said, the audiences put it at 72%. I feel that there is an oversimplification of many aspects of the film that have been latched onto. For instance, in the fight between the titular characters, Bats is about to do a final blow, and Superman says "Save her. Save Martha." That one aspect is one of the largest complaints I have heard. Many are in rancor saying that the name Martha was what made batman suddenly have empathy for superman and stop the fight. No, it was much deeper than that. Martha was both their mother's name (a fact I never thought about before), but what was more important was the plea to save her. That made Bats pause, and start angrily screaming "why did you say that name?" The name caught his attention, the phrase made him stop, and that was enough to make him see there was more going on.
I saw it at a drive in, and the cost for that film averaged out to $4. It was easily worth that much. The film is good, worth a watch, and to make up your own mind. Many of the criticisms I have heard oversimplify the situation, and then attack it for being stupid. for me, the movie was good save for the repetitive prophetic dreams and 'luthor.'
So many items I would like to get my hands on . . . but will never do so. They are exorbitantly expensive on their own, and that is because they came from stupid freakin random item generators.
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:17 pm
Bat killing people is definitely a no-no. From the trailers, Lex seemed like a different person entirely. It would have been better for him to just be a new character.
Yeah, Gaia's economy is permanently messed up, but I guess it lets them rake in the dough, so they're don't care past that.
Reply
