The DC Movies Thread v AQUAMAN

[TioJorge]

  @ the Heisenberg = Jesse Eisenberg. That's fucking brilliant.

I honestly can't tell if he's a genius in this role or just a downright miserable douchebag. They haven't shown NEARLY enough of his character for the immense amounts of hatred thrown his way (unless you just really don't like Eisenberg, but I do the vast majority of the time), but people love to make immense assumptions on smidgens of info so nothing new there. I do agree with Hef though that it looks tonally out of place and a seemingly cheesy bright spot in an otherwise colorless movie.

I do really want to see how his character turns out and as Shadow said, is pretty much the only reason I'd even consider seeing the movie. But I don't think I will unless I end up having a really, really, really, really, really, really, reaaaallllllly boring day one day and just decide to go on a whim. Pretty sure this will be an On Demand movie down the line for me.

[Kotowboy]

I want to go see it. Just for sh*ts and gigg*es

[Zook]

Apparently that trailer really did give away the whole movie.

[aurorablind]

No it didnt.

I fucking loved the movie. A bit fast paced at times, but fucking incredible as a movie. I actually wished it was longer.
Affleck = the best Batman ever. No doubt. (If you're a fan of the comics at least)

[aurorablind]

Oh, Lex was a total psychopath. Perfect casting as Lex jr. I was really sceptical when I heard Eisenberg was playing him, but he really fit in.
For those who think the movie is crowded with too many super heroes. Dont worry. It really isn't at all. Go see this movie, and you'll understand.
I am a big DC nerd. This is THE definitive DC-movie that has been released at this point.

[Accelerando]

It seems like the general movie audience is enjoying it. A friend of mine just came back from an early IMAX screening in Irvine, CA tonight, and said that it was better than Man of Steel and is not what the critics are painting it to be. I am working on a commercial through Friday, so Saturday is looking like the day I will go see it.

Aurorablind, I'm a DC guy myself (although I do love Marvel too.....im Team Coexist!), so I am excited to finally see Batman and Superman not the big screen together, not to mention Wonder Woman's long overdue big screen appearance. Do you think people who aren't familiar with DC will enjoy it?

[aurorablind]

Im sure it's a very enjoyable movie for the general movie goer, though a lot of references and easter eggs may be a bit confusing.
The movie is packed with so much goodness that it's impossible to get bored.

[Zantera]

No it didnt.

I fucking loved the movie. A bit fast paced at times, but fucking incredible as a movie. I actually wished it was longer.
Affleck = the best Batman ever. No doubt. (If you're a fan of the comics at least)

You don't need to wish. You just need to wait for the directors cut on the BluRay release which will be 30 minutes longer AND R-rated. 

[Dimitrius]

So yeah, this movie could've been so much better.

The first half is outright plodding, I did not like Luthor's portrayal (though that's more of a personal opinion), still think Gal Gadot is not right for WW, but man oh man did Affleck killed it as Batman!

[SebastianPratesi]

Im sure it's a very enjoyable movie for the general movie goer, though a lot of references and easter eggs may be a bit confusing.
The movie is packed with so much goodness that it's impossible to get bored.

I just came back from the cinema (my cousin invited me), and it wasn't enjoyable, and it's possible to get bored - I did. In fact, I fell asleep at one point, for at least 10 minutes. That said, I don't usually care for superhero/action movies (although one of the Batman movies with Christian Bale I did like), so maybe my opinion is not anything representative.

About the easter eggs: I wasn't paying much attention (I don't know much of the stories of the characters), so there might be a lot of stuff I missed. Still, I thought Wonder Woman looked more like Xena than the Wonder Woman I know. I did like the music in a scene in which she takes part - it's something in 7/8 played by strings - so I assume that's her theme music from her original series or something?

I've never ranked a film from 1 to 10, but if I may, it's a 1. My cousin didn't like it either, and he is into those movies, so there goes some precious $11.

[Accelerando]

I put Spoilers in the thread's title for those who wish to discuss Batman v Superman in detail.

The reception for this movie is just so damned odd. I know people I trust with their tastes in movies who walked out of this enjoying the film, but the critics hate it. I'm checking this out Saturday and I'll give my thoughts.

But the fact the first movie in history with Batman and Superman together on the big screen is being bashed really sucks for me 

[Adami]

I've been paying attention to the reviews, and the basic complaint seems to be in the story itself. People, generally, agree that Batman is awesome. Wonder Woman is awesome. Superman is pretty cool. But how the movie is constructed, how things play into each other is just a jumbled mess.

Luckily, most fans of these kinds of movies don't really need solid coherent stories, they want to see their sueprheroes do cool things, so I assume that's why fans like it but critics didn't. It delivers on cool stuff but lacks coherency and good storytelling.

This is just what I've gathered. I'll try to see it in a week or so.

[JRundquist]

I just saw it tonight.

While there is plenty of stuff that I would have changed, there is so much about it I do enjoy.

The tone was what I was hoping for, almost all of the cast was fantastic, it's genuinely suspenseful.

For the downside, the direction felt wonky a lot of the time with a lot of parts that will make you second guess what is going on. There's other stuff that bothers me as well, but since it's opening worldwide (technically) today, I'll refrain from going further until people get a chance to see it.

I think one of the biggest complaints is essentially, this is not the Christopher Nolan Batman that the average person loves today and wants to have forever. It follows suit of the latter day Batman comics and gets even darker (if that was possible). Since Most people who enjoy superhero movies in adulthood mainly stick to the Tim Burton's Batman series and forward on, not as mnay paid that much attention to the comics that were goin on as well, which is greatly shown in this film. So people will have a bit of a culture clash.

Essentially, if you had any inkling to go see it, just go see it. Maybe not this weekend, got on a cheap tuesday afternoon or something if you are that weary of it. But I saw the second showing of it here in Minnesota tonight and I enjoyed it a great deal.

[Zantera]

If I had to compare it to something, I would say it reminded me a lot of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but better. The main problem of the film is definitely being unfocused and having way too many things going on. There was a lot of jumping between stories and characters when they should have focused it more on the main conflict, which (spoilers) is an 8 minute fight towards the end. Definitely felt similar to TASM2 where there wasn't really a plot so much as different things happening. Bruce is doing his thing investigating criminals which leads him to Lex, Clark is doing his thing with the moral dilemma of whether Superman should answer to anyone or not, Lex Luthor is doing his thing with experimenting with Kryptonian things, as well as wanting Batman and Superman to fight, and then you have a lot of scenes dedicated to Lois and the newspaper crew, setting up Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg.

Unlike TASM2 it has good parts though. The Batman stuff was all really good. The portrayal, the costume, Alfred, the batman cave, the gadgets, the CAR. Everything involving Batman was pretty much perfect. It's just a shame that the movie as a whole was a bit of a mess.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I wasn't planning on seeing this movie, just because I'm not the biggest fan of Zack Snyder, but its reviews have been so strangely bad that now I want to see it. I have no good reasons to believe this, but I feel like it's getting an unfairly bad rap.

[Zantera]

I wasn't planning on seeing this movie, just because I'm not the biggest fan of Zack Snyder, but its reviews have been so strangely bad that now I want to see it. I have no good reasons to believe this, but I feel like it's getting an unfairly bad rap.

There are good things in this film, mainly Batman and everything involving him. Wonder Woman was pretty good too. The main problem is that similar to TASM2 or Fantastic Four (though not AS extreme), it doesn't feel quite like a finished (or polished) movie. Snyder said that he took his 3 hour directors cut and trimmed it down to 2 ˝ hours, and it definitely shows.

[ariich]

I wasn't planning on seeing this movie, just because I'm not the biggest fan of Zack Snyder, but its reviews have been so strangely bad that now I want to see it. I have no good reasons to believe this, but I feel like it's getting an unfairly bad rap.

There are good things in this film, mainly Batman and everything involving him. Wonder Woman was pretty good too. The main problem is that similar to TASM2 or Fantastic Four (though not AS extreme), it doesn't feel quite like a finished (or polished) movie. Snyder said that he took his 3 hour directors cut and trimmed it down to 2 ˝ hours, and it definitely shows.

I'll wait for the director's cut in that case.

[kaos2900]

I agree that I'm going to wait for the director's cut. It sounds like the same issue with The Battle of Five Armies. The extended edition greatly improved the film. Hopefully the same happens with BvS.

[hefdaddy42]

Definitely felt similar to TASM2 where there wasn't really a plot so much as different things happening.
 

It's just a shame that the movie as a whole was a bit of a mess.

These two comments echo what a coworker told me who saw it last night.  She is the biggest Batman freak I know, and has REALLY been looking forward to it.  She said there are good parts, but they aren't woven together very well.  She said the editing and pacing are pretty bad, which is a shame, since there is obviously good bits to work with.

But I wouldn't wait for a "director's cut".  This release is the director's cut, as was the theatrical release of Battle of the Five Armies.  Any other cuts are just other cuts, they aren't the "director's cut" or the "official cut".  The only time that the phrase "director's cut" means anything is if the studio forced cuts on the director for the theatrical release - if the theatrical release is not what the director actually intended to be as the REAL version of the film.  That isn't the case with this film or with any of Peter Jackson's films.

[Zantera]

I think the problem is that a lot of the plot threads were unnecessary or handled poorly. I have some ideas of how they could have fixed it, but I'll hold off until more people have seen the film, so it's more OK to spoil it.

But without spoiling exactly how it happens, the way they introduced the other Justice League members was really weird. Had a similar vibe to the scene in TASM2 where the one guy walks past the Doctor Octopus arms, the Vulture wings etc. Small details like that could have been done better. You'll see how they did it when you see the film.

[ariich]

Definitely felt similar to TASM2 where there wasn't really a plot so much as different things happening.
 

It's just a shame that the movie as a whole was a bit of a mess.

These two comments echo what a coworker told me who saw it last night.  She is the biggest Batman freak I know, and has REALLY been looking forward to it.  She said there are good parts, but they aren't woven together very well.  She said the editing and pacing are pretty bad, which is a shame, since there is obviously good bits to work with.

But I wouldn't wait for a "director's cut".  This release is the director's cut, as was the theatrical release of Battle of the Five Armies.  Any other cuts are just other cuts, they aren't the "director's cut" or the "official cut".  The only time that the phrase "director's cut" means anything is if the studio forced cuts on the director for the theatrical release - if the theatrical release is not what the director actually intended to be as the REAL version of the film.  That isn't the case with this film or with any of Peter Jackson's films.

Perhaps director's preferred cut is a better description. A director may be perfectly willing to edit a film shorter for theatrical release without the studio having to force it on them, but that doesn't mean it's the story they want to tell.

[Zantera]

Ben Affleck reacting to BvS reviews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwXfv25xJUw

Best video I've seen on the Internet in a while 

[King Postwhore]

Holy shit that was funny.

[Bolsters]

Ben Affleck reacting to BvS reviews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwXfv25xJUw

[SebastianPratesi]

Great video! I had more fun watching that 1 minute than any part of the movie. It reminded me of some scenes of Arrested Development.

I had more fun watching that video than any part of the movie.

[hefdaddy42]

Perhaps director's preferred cut is a better description. A director may be perfectly willing to edit a film shorter for theatrical release without the studio having to force it on them, but that doesn't mean it's the story they want to tell.

I still don't think that's accurate.  I know it's not accurate from Peter Jackson's perspective, because I've seen him talk about it.  The Extended Versions are just alternate versions, where he adds in some things that were cut for legitimate reasons.

It's not a preferred cut, it's just a different cut.

[bosk1]

But I wouldn't wait for a "director's cut".  This release is the director's cut, as was the theatrical release of Battle of the Five Armies.  Any other cuts are just other cuts, they aren't the "director's cut" or the "official cut".  The only time that the phrase "director's cut" means anything is if the studio forced cuts on the director for the theatrical release - if the theatrical release is not what the director actually intended to be as the REAL version of the film.  That isn't the case with this film or with any of Peter Jackson's films.

Hef, I understand that you may not like that phrase and may not personally feel that it is accurate.  But it is a term of art that has a specific meaning, and the way it is being used by others in this thread is (or at least, had become) the correct one.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director%27s_cut  A theatrical release that has been cut down to fit time constraints is, by definition, NOT a "director's cut" as that term is commonly used.  An extended version released after the theatrical release that has the deleted scenes re-inserted usually is, by definition, a "director's cut."  Heck, Snyder himself is even referring to the extended version as the "director's cut," so I'm not sure why there is even any debate as to whether that is the correct term.  https://collider.com/batman-v-superman-deleted-scenes-directors-cut/

That said, I have no affirmative plans either to see or not see this, so I'm still not sure whether I will see this in theaters or see the director's cut. 

[ariich]

If something has been cut out of a film because it doesn't fit, disrupts the narrative flow, whatever, then yeah that's just a normal editing decision. You might see it as a deleted scene, but you wouldn't normally see it put back into the movie for an extended edition. But in most cases these days where longer versions are quickly released on DVD, most cut material was purely for time reasons, because sitting in a cinema for hours is exhausting for audiences, whereas home video can be watched in stages.

[kaos2900]

I'm pretty sure Peter Jackson has stated that the extended editions of the films are his true vision. There are many things to consider when editing a film including time which forces certain scenes to be cut.

[Implode]

Also sometimes director's cuts can be worse than the final product. Sometimes it actually helps to have other people get involved and make some changes. (Like Star Wars for example)

[Zantera]

[hefdaddy42]

Hef, I understand that you may not like that phrase and may not personally feel that it is accurate.  But it is a term of art that has a specific meaning, and the way it is being used by others in this thread is (or at least, had become) the correct one.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director%27s_cut  A theatrical release that has been cut down to fit time constraints is, by definition, NOT a "director's cut" as that term is commonly used.  An extended version released after the theatrical release that has the deleted scenes re-inserted usually is, by definition, a "director's cut." 

bosky, did you actually read the article you linked to?

Traditionally, the "director's cut" is not, by definition, the director's ideal or preferred cut.

Alien: The Director's Cut, for example, is simply a misuse of the phrase. As Ridley Scott explains in the DVD insert, the 2003 cut of Alien was created at the request of 20th Century Fox, who wanted to re-release Alien in a form that was somehow altered or enhanced. Scott agreed, and settled on making an alternative cut of the film. He describes it simply as a second version that he is also satisfied with, even though the original released cut is still his preferred version.

When it was discovered that the market for alternative versions of films was substantial, the studios themselves began to promote "director's cuts" for a wide array of films, even some where the director already had final cut of the theatrical release. These were usually assembled with the addition of deleted scenes, sometimes adding as much as a half-hour to the length of the film without regard to pacing and storytelling. Such "commercial" director's cuts are seldom considered superior to the original film and in many cases, fans think the films are diminished by the director's own ego or the studios' desire for revenue.

A related concept to the "Director's Cut" is that of an extended or special edition. An example is Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies. While Jackson considers the theatrical releases of those six films to be a final "director's cut" within the constraints of theatrical exhibition, the extended cuts were produced so that fans of the material could see nearly all of the scenes shot for the script to develop more of J. R. R. Tolkien's world, but which were originally cut for running time, or other reasons. New music and special effects were also added to the cuts.

[bosk1]

Yes, I did read it.  As most relevant:

Director's cuts of film are not generally released to the public: with most film studios the director does not have a final cut privilege. The studio (whose investment is at risk) can insist on changes that they think will make the film profit more at the box office. This sometimes means a happier ending or less ambiguity, or excluding scenes that would earn a more audience-restricting rating, but more often means that the film is simply shortened to provide more screenings per day. The most common form of director's cut is therefore to have extra scenes added, often making the director's cut considerably longer than the final cut.

And, yes, while there are definitely examples of extended versions that are NOT a "director's cut," there are also extended versions that are.  It depends on context, as that article clearly points out.  And as relevant to the film we are discussing here: 

Warner Bros. announced a few weeks ago that an extended, R-rated cut of the film will be getting the Blu-ray treatment later this year, with director Zack Snyder going so far as to refer to that version of the film as his “director’s cut.”

[hefdaddy42]

I see that it refers to him saying that, but I haven't seen an actual quote from him saying that.  Maybe he did say that, perhaps using it offhand because it's a "known term".

Regardless, that is certainly not how it's being marketed.  He is calling it an Ultimate Cut (whatever that means). 

The thrust of my argument is that extended/special editions are not equivalent with director's cuts.  Even if they are actually assembled by the directors.

[bosk1]

True, but I think it is more accurate to say that extended/special editions are not automatically equivalent with director's cuts, but they often (but certainly not always) are director's cuts.