Poll Which will be better Batman v Superman or Avengers AoU (186 votes)
Which will be better? Which will be more successful? Which would you rather see?
Yes I know its too early to judge!
Which will be better? Which will be more successful? Which would you rather see?
Yes I know its too early to judge!
Avengers.
So the guys at DC deciding BvS would be a good idea... the only thing we need to know is what they're smoking.
Ofcourse it was a brilliant idea. Batman movies and Superman movies generally bring in a lot of money. Batman got over a billion from his last two movies and Superman got nearly 700 million. Just from putting Batman and Superman in the same movie will make them over 1 billion, especially with the attention TDK brought to Batman and people's curiosity to see how well Ben Affleck does. It doesn't matter how bad you think he will do, you're still going to go and watch it. And to have these two actually fight? I can almost garuntee that is making over 1.5 billion, easy. People have been waiting decades to see Batman and Superman fight on screen, much less be in the same movie period.
Then you include the fact that you have Dwayne hyping he will be a DC character, DC getting tons of respect for Arrow and Flash, plus they are getting two more shows Constanie and Gotham(which is basically drawing more attention to Batman). And then the follow up of Superman snapping Zods neck. I don't see what part of that was a bad idea.
Financially; I already predict it'll be a great success. I strongly dislike MOS - although, as you explained, I'll be watching BvS on it's release date because it's Batman and Superman. You could have a little child play Batman and everyone would still go in there. Although who the heck thought Zack Snyder would do an at least decent job in directing? I'm not prepared for a final 45 minutes of eye candy from yet another blockbuster. Blow this, blow that.
.....you do realize that Zach Snyder was the same one who directed Watchmen(the best Superhero movie hands down in terms of story) and 300 right? How is Batman v Superman a bad idea?
It's a bad idea because, besides Watchmen, Zach dedicates a bulk of his runtime towards action, explosions and spectacle.
Ummmm now I'm fairly certain you are confusing Zack Snyder with Michael Bay. Man Of Steel didn't really have that much explosions or action. Most of Man Of Steel was his origins and the only real explosions we saw was from the beginning which isn't really counted since they were showing Krypton being destroyed. There was the oil rig scene but that was to show Superman as a character before he became Superman and I'm pretty sure that was suppoed to be a follow for Aquaman. There was only one explosion with him and Zod really. Him vs Faora and Nam-Ek had about 2-3 explosions or so. That isn't a lot of action or explosions. Some even complained that there wasn't enough action since his fight scenes were probably around 10 minutes in total out of a 143 minute movie. I'll add the fight with Jor-El and Zod and that would only be about 15. I don't see whats wrong with spectacle. It's not like their were just random explosions going on every second.
You compare that to Avengers, all Iron-Man movies, Thor(probably) and and especially Captain America, that's nothing.
His other modern time movie was Sucker Punch but it's basically a movie in war so explosions are expected.
And people want to see a movie with a lot of action. I don't see how he's bulking anything when it was only for about 15 minutes...
Michael Bay directed Transformers, and Zach Snyder directed MOS, Watchmen and Sucker Punch, right? Yep, I'm fairly sure I'm not confusing anyone. Really, 15 minutes? Far fetched, my friend - far fetched. The final battle scene with Superman vs. Zod and Faora lasted at least 35 minutes, combine that with 10 minutes of action in the beginning at Krypton... that's at least 45 minutes of action. At least.
The final battle was with Superman and Zod, not Superman, Zod, and Faora. The full battle between Superman and Zod at the end of the movie was only 5 minutes and that goes with him vs Faora and Zod. The first battle scene happened at 1 hour and 33 minutes.
That last battle that was supposedly 35 minutes started at 2:02:12(literally when he first hit Superman) and ended at 2:07:42(the point where he snapped his neck). That's 5 minutes and 30 seconds...not 35.
As I said before, the last one doesn't really count since it was the ending of Krypton. It's not like they could have shown it blowing up and then have Superman talking about how he remembered it. They needed a story for Jor-El since he was a key within the movie. It wouldn't make any sense for him to just pop up in the middle of the move out of no where.
I'm just talking about fight scenes alone. Scene's where action is going on doesn't make any sense to bring up when we are talkign about super powered beings trying to take over a planet and Superman has to flight them.
Avengers had more action than Man Of Steel so if you're going to complain about man of steel then complain about Avengers also. There were tons od dialouge in the movie and not just action. 45 minutes wouldn't even be half of the movie. No one wants to go see a Superman movie with no action it in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=067jwuudPMA&list=UUUF7Q-OzCLtflQ6faSlWu9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oJN-loLv4Y&list=UUUF7Q-OzCLtflQ6faSlWu9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vu3f68phiE&list=UUUF7Q-OzCLtflQ6faSlWu9w
You just showed me Zods fight and if you add the time up that's only 5 minutes and 16 seconds....
Then you showed me a fight with him figjhting Nam-Ek and Faora for only 2 minutes. What was your point?
Tell me: What was going on in the film in the last 40 minutes - besides Clark talking to his mother in the end and going to the Daily Planet? What was happening before that?
It's the last 40 minutes..where the action finally starts because I started pretty late. I don't understand why we need to see more "story" when we already got plenty of knowledge of:
prior to the fight scene. There wasn't much to discuss. What did you want? Him to defeat Zod and his army in 15 minutes and then they show some love story between him and Lois? There was already plenty discovered with Superman throughout the movie. Apparently all you saw was action and for some reason want to complain about action...in an action movie...with people and superpowers.
A city was getting destroyed. How long do you really expect that to last? How could you possibly change the plot of that? Zod only came to Earth to inhabit it. Let me hear something in which you can make that shorter and still good.
Explain to me what happens with the last 40 minutes of Avengers. That movie was also about the same thing and the same stuff happening and that had way more action that Man Of Steel. Or the entire movie of Captain America.
You people LOVE to complain about Man Of Steel but never say anything about Marvel movies. When Green Lantern came out the complaint was there was little action. When you get more action from a movie people complain about how it's too much. Have Captain America and Avengers have nothing but action and there's nothing wrong with it...
Did I ever say Avengers was necessarily any better? No, not once. Did I mention Green Lantern of Captain America? No, not once. Did I mention love story or romance? No, I did not. You're shoving words into my texts where it didn't belong. Simply put - Snyder built up these characters but maybe didn't develop them enough. Those last 40 minutes were eye candy - whilst 20 minutes of that could've been removed to further develop the characters.
Maybe Lois and Clark - maybe not. I'm not really interested in the romance dynamic, heck - I don't even really hate Man of Steel. I think it's okay, I don't think it's bad - the action was visually stunning - but when it's smash this, and smash that - it's kind of useless. I don't really mind interesting fight sequences.
Iron Man 3 got a lot of action in - but because the final encounter was interesting to watch - I wasn't really bothered too much - but even that wasn't as lengthy as Man of Steel. You clearly assume I'm a MARVEL fanboy, which, no, I'm not. Yes - I like MARVEL over DC - but I'm admitting of the former's flaws.
@jayc1324 said:
@wardemon32: I just explained it above. In avengers everyone fits and has a nice role. They are forcing more and more in bvs though.
How was it necessary to bring in Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. We have no info on how much screen time Aquaman and Cybog will get or what they will even do. How could you know if everone fits nicely if we've seen nothing of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch?
@jack_donaghy: because those are heroes who have worked together before and fit nicely. Bvs is introducing a bunch of new characters, even aquaman. Unlikely they will all fit into the plot and story nicely without feeling forced.
Hawkeye never worked with anyone of them before except for Black Widow. He was a wasted character.
Avengers.
So the guys at DC deciding BvS would be a good idea... the only thing we need to know is what they're smoking.
Ofcourse it was a brilliant idea. Batman movies and Superman movies generally bring in a lot of money. Batman got over a billion from his last two movies and Superman got nearly 700 million. Just from putting Batman and Superman in the same movie will make them over 1 billion, especially with the attention TDK brought to Batman and people's curiosity to see how well Ben Affleck does. It doesn't matter how bad you think he will do, you're still going to go and watch it. And to have these two actually fight? I can almost garuntee that is making over 1.5 billion, easy. People have been waiting decades to see Batman and Superman fight on screen, much less be in the same movie period.
Then you include the fact that you have Dwayne hyping he will be a DC character, DC getting tons of respect for Arrow and Flash, plus they are getting two more shows Constanie and Gotham(which is basically drawing more attention to Batman). And then the follow up of Superman snapping Zods neck. I don't see what part of that was a bad idea.
Financially; I already predict it'll be a great success. I strongly dislike MOS - although, as you explained, I'll be watching BvS on it's release date because it's Batman and Superman. You could have a little child play Batman and everyone would still go in there. Although who the heck thought Zack Snyder would do an at least decent job in directing? I'm not prepared for a final 45 minutes of eye candy from yet another blockbuster. Blow this, blow that.
.....you do realize that Zach Snyder was the same one who directed Watchmen(the best Superhero movie hands down in terms of story) and 300 right? How is Batman v Superman a bad idea?
It's a bad idea because, besides Watchmen, Zach dedicates a bulk of his runtime towards action, explosions and spectacle.
Ummmm now I'm fairly certain you are confusing Zack Snyder with Michael Bay. Man Of Steel didn't really have that much explosions or action. Most of Man Of Steel was his origins and the only real explosions we saw was from the beginning which isn't really counted since they were showing Krypton being destroyed. There was the oil rig scene but that was to show Superman as a character before he became Superman and I'm pretty sure that was suppoed to be a follow for Aquaman. There was only one explosion with him and Zod really. Him vs Faora and Nam-Ek had about 2-3 explosions or so. That isn't a lot of action or explosions. Some even complained that there wasn't enough action since his fight scenes were probably around 10 minutes in total out of a 143 minute movie. I'll add the fight with Jor-El and Zod and that would only be about 15. I don't see whats wrong with spectacle. It's not like their were just random explosions going on every second.
You compare that to Avengers, all Iron-Man movies, Thor(probably) and and especially Captain America, that's nothing.
His other modern time movie was Sucker Punch but it's basically a movie in war so explosions are expected.
And people want to see a movie with a lot of action. I don't see how he's bulking anything when it was only for about 15 minutes...
Michael Bay directed Transformers, and Zach Snyder directed MOS, Watchmen and Sucker Punch, right? Yep, I'm fairly sure I'm not confusing anyone. Really, 15 minutes? Far fetched, my friend - far fetched. The final battle scene with Superman vs. Zod and Faora lasted at least 35 minutes, combine that with 10 minutes of action in the beginning at Krypton... that's at least 45 minutes of action. At least.
The final battle was with Superman and Zod, not Superman, Zod, and Faora. The full battle between Superman and Zod at the end of the movie was only 5 minutes and that goes with him vs Faora and Zod. The first battle scene happened at 1 hour and 33 minutes.
That last battle that was supposedly 35 minutes started at 2:02:12(literally when he first hit Superman) and ended at 2:07:42(the point where he snapped his neck). That's 5 minutes and 30 seconds...not 35.
As I said before, the last one doesn't really count since it was the ending of Krypton. It's not like they could have shown it blowing up and then have Superman talking about how he remembered it. They needed a story for Jor-El since he was a key within the movie. It wouldn't make any sense for him to just pop up in the middle of the move out of no where.
I'm just talking about fight scenes alone. Scene's where action is going on doesn't make any sense to bring up when we are talkign about super powered beings trying to take over a planet and Superman has to flight them.
Avengers had more action than Man Of Steel so if you're going to complain about man of steel then complain about Avengers also. There were tons od dialouge in the movie and not just action. 45 minutes wouldn't even be half of the movie. No one wants to go see a Superman movie with no action it in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=067jwuudPMA&list=UUUF7Q-OzCLtflQ6faSlWu9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oJN-loLv4Y&list=UUUF7Q-OzCLtflQ6faSlWu9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vu3f68phiE&list=UUUF7Q-OzCLtflQ6faSlWu9w
You just showed me Zods fight and if you add the time up that's only 5 minutes and 16 seconds....
Then you showed me a fight with him figjhting Nam-Ek and Faora for only 2 minutes. What was your point?
Tell me: What was going on in the film in the last 40 minutes - besides Clark talking to his mother in the end and going to the Daily Planet? What was happening before that?
It's the last 40 minutes..where the action finally starts because I started pretty late. I don't understand why we need to see more "story" when we already got plenty of knowledge of:
prior to the fight scene. There wasn't much to discuss. What did you want? Him to defeat Zod and his army in 15 minutes and then they show some love story between him and Lois? There was already plenty discovered with Superman throughout the movie. Apparently all you saw was action and for some reason want to complain about action...in an action movie...with people and superpowers.
A city was getting destroyed. How long do you really expect that to last? How could you possibly change the plot of that? Zod only came to Earth to inhabit it. Let me hear something in which you can make that shorter and still good.
Explain to me what happens with the last 40 minutes of Avengers. That movie was also about the same thing and the same stuff happening and that had way more action that Man Of Steel. Or the entire movie of Captain America.
You people LOVE to complain about Man Of Steel but never say anything about Marvel movies. When Green Lantern came out the complaint was there was little action. When you get more action from a movie people complain about how it's too much. Have Captain America and Avengers have nothing but action and there's nothing wrong with it...
Did I ever say Avengers was necessarily any better? No, not once. Did I mention Green Lantern of Captain America? No, not once. Did I mention love story or romance? No, I did not. You're shoving words into my texts where it didn't belong. Simply put - Snyder built up these characters but maybe didn't develop them enough. Those last 40 minutes were eye candy - whilst 20 minutes of that could've been removed to further develop the characters.
Maybe Lois and Clark - maybe not. I'm not really interested in the romance dynamic, heck - I don't even really hate Man of Steel. I think it's okay, I don't think it's bad - the action was visually stunning - but when it's smash this, and smash that - it's kind of useless. I don't really mind interesting fight sequences.
Iron Man 3 got a lot of action in - but because the final encounter was interesting to watch - I wasn't really bothered too much - but even that wasn't as lengthy as Man of Steel. You clearly assume I'm a MARVEL fanboy, which, no, I'm not. Yes - I like MARVEL over DC - but I'm admitting of the former's flaws.
Yes. You don't have to spell things out for people to understand what you are saying. You said it was because "Zach dedicates a bulk of his runtime towards action, explosions and spectacle."(even though you had nothing to reference to) but you could have easily said the same for Avengers.
And I like how you do this while no you didn't say this and that thing.
You try so hard for something to complain about that it's sad. Please explain what characters weren't developed enough. Superman clearly isn't one of those characters since his childhood was constantly brung up within the movie. Who needed character development? Lois? What Superman movie have you ever seen that tried to do that for Lois? They didn't even do that for ginger in Iron-Man. Where they supposed to use that time for some good ol' character development for a couple of dead villians and his parents(Oh yeah, I forgot, they already did that in the beginning of the movie). Oh, I know what you want, you want character development for Perry--a news guy who will have little relevance in the upcoming movies. Nah, that couldn't be it. You want to see him snap Zods neck and then have 20 minutes left behind of Superman just walking around thinking about how he snapped Zods neck.
You don't hate man of steel? You didn't think it was bad. You actually thought it was okay?
"I strongly dislike MOS"
Those weren't your words in post #67 on page 2? But that's none of my business.
It's only useless if you didn't pay attention to the plot. The World Engine was a necessary tool so ofcourse it was "smash this, smash that".
Everyone thought the final encounter was interesting to watch. And I love how you completely ignored Avengers. I also(this is like tots my fav part) LOVE how you mention Iron Man 3 but I never even said anything about it and this same exact post you critize me for doing that(although you were wrong about it anyways). I never thought of you as a Marvel fanboy but now I think you are/ Your reasoing for the Iron-Man three was because it was interesting while that still does cross out the fact that a whole bunch of it was just action and nothing else. It's crazy how you want dialouge and "character development" but you bring up Iron-Man 3, the same movie that tossed Mandarin out of the window and had nothing but Toyn talking about how he wants to fight him....
Man Of Steel haters. Never gets too old.
Avengers.
So the guys at DC deciding BvS would be a good idea... the only thing we need to know is what they're smoking.
Ofcourse it was a brilliant idea. Batman movies and Superman movies generally bring in a lot of money. Batman got over a billion from his last two movies and Superman got nearly 700 million. Just from putting Batman and Superman in the same movie will make them over 1 billion, especially with the attention TDK brought to Batman and people's curiosity to see how well Ben Affleck does. It doesn't matter how bad you think he will do, you're still going to go and watch it. And to have these two actually fight? I can almost garuntee that is making over 1.5 billion, easy. People have been waiting decades to see Batman and Superman fight on screen, much less be in the same movie period.
Then you include the fact that you have Dwayne hyping he will be a DC character, DC getting tons of respect for Arrow and Flash, plus they are getting two more shows Constanie and Gotham(which is basically drawing more attention to Batman). And then the follow up of Superman snapping Zods neck. I don't see what part of that was a bad idea.
Financially; I already predict it'll be a great success. I strongly dislike MOS - although, as you explained, I'll be watching BvS on it's release date because it's Batman and Superman. You could have a little child play Batman and everyone would still go in there. Although who the heck thought Zack Snyder would do an at least decent job in directing? I'm not prepared for a final 45 minutes of eye candy from yet another blockbuster. Blow this, blow that.
.....you do realize that Zach Snyder was the same one who directed Watchmen(the best Superhero movie hands down in terms of story) and 300 right? How is Batman v Superman a bad idea?
It's a bad idea because, besides Watchmen, Zach dedicates a bulk of his runtime towards action, explosions and spectacle.
Ummmm now I'm fairly certain you are confusing Zack Snyder with Michael Bay. Man Of Steel didn't really have that much explosions or action. Most of Man Of Steel was his origins and the only real explosions we saw was from the beginning which isn't really counted since they were showing Krypton being destroyed. There was the oil rig scene but that was to show Superman as a character before he became Superman and I'm pretty sure that was suppoed to be a follow for Aquaman. There was only one explosion with him and Zod really. Him vs Faora and Nam-Ek had about 2-3 explosions or so. That isn't a lot of action or explosions. Some even complained that there wasn't enough action since his fight scenes were probably around 10 minutes in total out of a 143 minute movie. I'll add the fight with Jor-El and Zod and that would only be about 15. I don't see whats wrong with spectacle. It's not like their were just random explosions going on every second.
You compare that to Avengers, all Iron-Man movies, Thor(probably) and and especially Captain America, that's nothing.
His other modern time movie was Sucker Punch but it's basically a movie in war so explosions are expected.
And people want to see a movie with a lot of action. I don't see how he's bulking anything when it was only for about 15 minutes...
Michael Bay directed Transformers, and Zach Snyder directed MOS, Watchmen and Sucker Punch, right? Yep, I'm fairly sure I'm not confusing anyone. Really, 15 minutes? Far fetched, my friend - far fetched. The final battle scene with Superman vs. Zod and Faora lasted at least 35 minutes, combine that with 10 minutes of action in the beginning at Krypton... that's at least 45 minutes of action. At least.
The final battle was with Superman and Zod, not Superman, Zod, and Faora. The full battle between Superman and Zod at the end of the movie was only 5 minutes and that goes with him vs Faora and Zod. The first battle scene happened at 1 hour and 33 minutes.
That last battle that was supposedly 35 minutes started at 2:02:12(literally when he first hit Superman) and ended at 2:07:42(the point where he snapped his neck). That's 5 minutes and 30 seconds...not 35.
As I said before, the last one doesn't really count since it was the ending of Krypton. It's not like they could have shown it blowing up and then have Superman talking about how he remembered it. They needed a story for Jor-El since he was a key within the movie. It wouldn't make any sense for him to just pop up in the middle of the move out of no where.
I'm just talking about fight scenes alone. Scene's where action is going on doesn't make any sense to bring up when we are talkign about super powered beings trying to take over a planet and Superman has to flight them.
Avengers had more action than Man Of Steel so if you're going to complain about man of steel then complain about Avengers also. There were tons od dialouge in the movie and not just action. 45 minutes wouldn't even be half of the movie. No one wants to go see a Superman movie with no action it in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=067jwuudPMA&list=UUUF7Q-OzCLtflQ6faSlWu9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oJN-loLv4Y&list=UUUF7Q-OzCLtflQ6faSlWu9w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vu3f68phiE&list=UUUF7Q-OzCLtflQ6faSlWu9w
You just showed me Zods fight and if you add the time up that's only 5 minutes and 16 seconds....
Then you showed me a fight with him figjhting Nam-Ek and Faora for only 2 minutes. What was your point?
Tell me: What was going on in the film in the last 40 minutes - besides Clark talking to his mother in the end and going to the Daily Planet? What was happening before that?
It's the last 40 minutes..where the action finally starts because I started pretty late. I don't understand why we need to see more "story" when we already got plenty of knowledge of:
prior to the fight scene. There wasn't much to discuss. What did you want? Him to defeat Zod and his army in 15 minutes and then they show some love story between him and Lois? There was already plenty discovered with Superman throughout the movie. Apparently all you saw was action and for some reason want to complain about action...in an action movie...with people and superpowers.
A city was getting destroyed. How long do you really expect that to last? How could you possibly change the plot of that? Zod only came to Earth to inhabit it. Let me hear something in which you can make that shorter and still good.
Explain to me what happens with the last 40 minutes of Avengers. That movie was also about the same thing and the same stuff happening and that had way more action that Man Of Steel. Or the entire movie of Captain America.
You people LOVE to complain about Man Of Steel but never say anything about Marvel movies. When Green Lantern came out the complaint was there was little action. When you get more action from a movie people complain about how it's too much. Have Captain America and Avengers have nothing but action and there's nothing wrong with it...
Did I ever say Avengers was necessarily any better? No, not once. Did I mention Green Lantern of Captain America? No, not once. Did I mention love story or romance? No, I did not. You're shoving words into my texts where it didn't belong. Simply put - Snyder built up these characters but maybe didn't develop them enough. Those last 40 minutes were eye candy - whilst 20 minutes of that could've been removed to further develop the characters.
Maybe Lois and Clark - maybe not. I'm not really interested in the romance dynamic, heck - I don't even really hate Man of Steel. I think it's okay, I don't think it's bad - the action was visually stunning - but when it's smash this, and smash that - it's kind of useless. I don't really mind interesting fight sequences.
Iron Man 3 got a lot of action in - but because the final encounter was interesting to watch - I wasn't really bothered too much - but even that wasn't as lengthy as Man of Steel. You clearly assume I'm a MARVEL fanboy, which, no, I'm not. Yes - I like MARVEL over DC - but I'm admitting of the former's flaws.
Yes. You don't have to spell things out for people to understand what you are saying. You said it was because "Zach dedicates a bulk of his runtime towards action, explosions and spectacle."(even though you had nothing to reference to) but you could have easily said the same for Avengers.
And I like how you do this while no you didn't say this and that thing.
You try so hard for something to complain about that it's sad. Please explain what characters weren't developed enough. Superman clearly isn't one of those characters since his childhood was constantly brung up within the movie. Who needed character development? Lois? What Superman movie have you ever seen that tried to do that for Lois? They didn't even do that for ginger in Iron-Man. Where they supposed to use that time for some good ol' character development for a couple of dead villians and his parents(Oh yeah, I forgot, they already did that in the beginning of the movie). Oh, I know what you want, you want character development for Perry--a news guy who will have little relevance in the upcoming movies. Nah, that couldn't be it. You want to see him snap Zods neck and then have 20 minutes left behind of Superman just walking around thinking about how he snapped Zods neck.
You don't hate man of steel? You didn't think it was bad.
Man - quit for the sarcasm, it doesn't sell you at all. You seemingly like Man of Steel, I respect that, I mentioned I don't think the film is terrible, but it's surely flawed. You've gotten angry - you're mad about the fact I didn't enjoy this film like you thing I should, and you've gotten defensive. Are you Mr Snyder? See, I could try sarcasm... isn't gonna help me reach my point.
Build relationships between the characters in the film - set stuff up. Clark Kent didn't enter the Bugle until the end of the film. Why? I've know idea - if he really did enter the Bugle before he donned the tights, I would've liked that much more - he could've interacted with the rest of the Daily Bugle... get us attached to those characters and set them up for Batman v Superman.
And the aftermath, in all honesty, felt rushed to me... how did snapping Zod's neck effect the character? Because, surely, having him fall to his knees and scream doesn't really sum everything up. This is similar to what MARVEL did with the "Shawarma" scene in Avengers. Because Iron Man is clearly meant to be broken... yet he's still eating Shawarma.
Yet I'm not sure which of the two is worst...
I actually edited since something was wrong with comicvine. You'll find more sarcasm there.
Man - quit for the sarcasm, it doesn't sell you at all. You seemingly like Man of Steel, I respect that, I mentioned I don't think the film is terrible, but it's surely flawed. You've gotten angry - you're mad about the fact I didn't enjoy this film like you thing I should, and you've gotten defensive. Are you Mr Snyder? See, I could try sarcasm... isn't gonna help me reach my point.
I like to use sarcasm when I hear people saying funny stuff. I'm not angry. Sarcastic people aren't angry...that is the point of sarcasm. You're laughing at the other person. And I seem to be reaching my point pretty well.
And that isn't sarcasm and if it is it's dumb. Let's assume that I'm actually mad. That means you could never get angry for someone criticizing something you like because you didn't create it? Okay.
Build relationships between the characters in the film - set stuff up. Clark Kent didn't enter the Bugle until the end of the film. Why? I've know idea - if he really did enter the Bugle before he donned the tights, I would've liked that much more - he could've interacted with the rest of the Daily Bugle... get us attached to those characters and set them up for Batman v Superman.
Fail. I'm too lazy to pull up some memes and gifs.
So you do want a romance? And he didn't enter the Bugle because that wasn't his job...He was just a farm kid who(if you paid attention to the movie) seemingly had a bit of social problems.
You would have liked it more of he went inside of a building before he wore tights? That makes the movie better? How does that even take away from the action you were talking about? And you don't know teh plot ov Batman v Superman. You don't know if these characters are even relevant. That's the thing about you people who love to judge stuff before it comes out. Why would we need to be attatched to someone like Perry?
How would that even be relevant to what was going on?
And the aftermath, in all honesty, felt rushed to me... how did snapping Zod's neck effect the character? Because, surely, having him fall to his knees and scream doesn't really sum everything up. This is similar to what MARVEL did with the "Shawarma" scene in Avengers. Because Iron Man is clearly meant to be broken... yet he's still eating Shawarma.
Yet I'm not sure which of the two is worst...
You complain about how it was 40 minutes and was too long...and then you say it was rushed, Makes PERFECT SENSE.
Has it even dawned on you that they are going to show how it effected Superman in Batman v Superman and you sitting here talking about how it will be nothing but action makes about 0 sense and that just voided your arguement right there? The only way we could possibly see how it effected him is interactions with other villians. Is he going all out?
Don't tell me you expected another villian to pop up to text Superman.
I actually edited since something was wrong with comicvine. You'll find more sarcasm there.
Man - quit for the sarcasm, it doesn't sell you at all. You seemingly like Man of Steel, I respect that, I mentioned I don't think the film is terrible, but it's surely flawed. You've gotten angry - you're mad about the fact I didn't enjoy this film like you thing I should, and you've gotten defensive. Are you Mr Snyder? See, I could try sarcasm... isn't gonna help me reach my point.
I like to use sarcasm when I hear people saying funny stuff. I'm not angry. Sarcastic people aren't angry...that is the point of sarcasm. You're laughing at the other person. And I seem to be reaching my point pretty well.
And that isn't sarcasm and if it is it's dumb. Let's assume that I'm actually mad. That means you could never get angry for someone criticizing something you like because you didn't create it? Okay.
Build relationships between the characters in the film - set stuff up. Clark Kent didn't enter the Bugle until the end of the film. Why? I've know idea - if he really did enter the Bugle before he donned the tights, I would've liked that much more - he could've interacted with the rest of the Daily Bugle... get us attached to those characters and set them up for Batman v Superman.
Fail. I'm too lazy to pull up some memes and gifs.
So you do want a romance? And he didn't enter the Bugle because that wasn't his job...He was just a farm kid who(if you paid attention to the movie) seemingly had a bit of social problems.
You would have liked it more of he went inside of a building before he wore tights? That makes the movie better? How does that even take away from the action you were talking about? And you don't know teh plot ov Batman v Superman. You don't know if these characters are even relevant. That's the thing about you people who love to judge stuff before it comes out. Why would we need to be attatched to someone like Perry?
How would that even be relevant to what was going on?
And the aftermath, in all honesty, felt rushed to me... how did snapping Zod's neck effect the character? Because, surely, having him fall to his knees and scream doesn't really sum everything up. This is similar to what MARVEL did with the "Shawarma" scene in Avengers. Because Iron Man is clearly meant to be broken... yet he's still eating Shawarma.
Yet I'm not sure which of the two is worst...
You complain about how it was 40 minutes and was too long...and then you say it was rushed, Makes PERFECT SENSE.
Has it even dawned on you that they are going to show how it effected Superman in Batman v Superman and you sitting here talking about how it will be nothing but action makes about 0 sense and that just voided your arguement right there? The only way we could possibly see how it effected him is interactions with other villians. Is he going all out?
Don't tell me you expected another villian to pop up to text Superman.
Heh, heh. If they're gonna do a villain set up - they could do it similar to Batman Begins and how they set up The Joker. Don't try to be funny, you really aren't. I didn't say the action was rushed. There was too much action - but the aftermath, how Clark was effected after the battle... that was rushed.
If TASM, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight Rises etc's fights weren't 40 minutes long, and they spent more runtime developing aspect... then why didn't this? Tell me.
@themetalgearzero said:
I actually edited since something was wrong with comicvine. You'll find more sarcasm there.
Man - quit for the sarcasm, it doesn't sell you at all. You seemingly like Man of Steel, I respect that, I mentioned I don't think the film is terrible, but it's surely flawed. You've gotten angry - you're mad about the fact I didn't enjoy this film like you thing I should, and you've gotten defensive. Are you Mr Snyder? See, I could try sarcasm... isn't gonna help me reach my point.
I like to use sarcasm when I hear people saying funny stuff. I'm not angry. Sarcastic people aren't angry...that is the point of sarcasm. You're laughing at the other person. And I seem to be reaching my point pretty well.
And that isn't sarcasm and if it is it's dumb. Let's assume that I'm actually mad. That means you could never get angry for someone criticizing something you like because you didn't create it? Okay.
Build relationships between the characters in the film - set stuff up. Clark Kent didn't enter the Bugle until the end of the film. Why? I've know idea - if he really did enter the Bugle before he donned the tights, I would've liked that much more - he could've interacted with the rest of the Daily Bugle... get us attached to those characters and set them up for Batman v Superman.
Fail. I'm too lazy to pull up some memes and gifs.
So you do want a romance? And he didn't enter the Bugle because that wasn't his job...He was just a farm kid who(if you paid attention to the movie) seemingly had a bit of social problems.
You would have liked it more of he went inside of a building before he wore tights? That makes the movie better? How does that even take away from the action you were talking about? And you don't know teh plot ov Batman v Superman. You don't know if these characters are even relevant. That's the thing about you people who love to judge stuff before it comes out. Why would we need to be attatched to someone like Perry?
How would that even be relevant to what was going on?
And the aftermath, in all honesty, felt rushed to me... how did snapping Zod's neck effect the character? Because, surely, having him fall to his knees and scream doesn't really sum everything up. This is similar to what MARVEL did with the "Shawarma" scene in Avengers. Because Iron Man is clearly meant to be broken... yet he's still eating Shawarma.
Yet I'm not sure which of the two is worst...
You complain about how it was 40 minutes and was too long...and then you say it was rushed, Makes PERFECT SENSE.
Has it even dawned on you that they are going to show how it effected Superman in Batman v Superman and you sitting here talking about how it will be nothing but action makes about 0 sense and that just voided your arguement right there? The only way we could possibly see how it effected him is interactions with other villians. Is he going all out?
Don't tell me you expected another villian to pop up to text Superman.
Heh, heh. If they're gonna do a villain set up - they could do it similar to Batman Begins and how they set up The Joker. Don't try to be funny, you really aren't. I didn't say the action was rushed. There was too much action - but the aftermath, how Clark was effected after the battle... that was rushed.
If TASM, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight Rises etc's fights weren't 40 minutes long, and they spent more runtime developing aspect... then why didn't this? Tell me.
Your complaint was that it didn'ts how how it effected him, I replied with how theu would have to do another villan within the same movie, you say how they could have done a villian set-up....
Even if they did a villan set up, that doesn't show how killing Zod effected him. And I thought this was going pretty well-almost had me thinking I could do stand up comedy. Nah, but using logic means you're trying to be funny because things are funny because they are out of the ordinary, just as logic is for you.
So the aftermatch was rushed? Because he instantly cried after snapping someone's neck it means it was rushed? Was he supposed to walk off-screen emotionless? We never saw how it effected him psychologically so how could you possibly say it's rushed? Especially when Zack Snyder said we will see that develop as an explanation as to why he chose for Superman to snap Zods neck?
Superman's right wasn't even 40 minutes long. I've already pointed out that it was only 5 minutes each. If you want to count TDKR then about the whole movie was an action sequence. What the hell does "developing aspect" even mean? What aspect?
A guy complaining about too much action when there's 3 super powered villians trying to kill you and a machine destroying the city like you could actually reduce the action. What you say already makes 0 sense anyways being the fact that Superman had plenty of character development. Just because there was a lot of action doesn't mean there wasn't any character development. The movie was over 2 hours.
This is a stupid debate to have with nothing to actually compare. However, I can say that I am infinitely more excited for Batman v Superman.
I want it to be BvS.
I want to see DC kickstart their cinematic universe. That and the Trinity coming to the screen for the first time is so much more exciting for me than an Avengers film.
Most likely they'll be even in quality being that you have the very visual Director (Snyder) and the Oscar Winning writer (Terrio) for Bvs, and you have the same crew from Avengers for its sequel. They'll just be different types of movies.
I think this forum would be Marvel Fan Vs DC Fan . I honestly think both would be good & I see marvel & dc movies for different reasons .
After seeing that footage of BVS I'm excited for that movie (even though in a die hard marvel fan) that one scene with batman & superman gave me chills . I was worried about the casting tho it bothers me & I can't figure out WW , Aquaman or Cyborgs rule yet .
I loved Avengers & thought it was amazing (even though they downplayed their characters especially Thor greatly) . Seeing the concept art for vision & the hulk buster armor really gave me chills too . I'll love it as long as it's not Iron Man 3.5 like the first one was kind of Iron Man 2.5 .
In the end im seeing both movies regardless & I think we all are lol .
@themetalgearzero said:
I actually edited since something was wrong with comicvine. You'll find more sarcasm there.
Man - quit for the sarcasm, it doesn't sell you at all. You seemingly like Man of Steel, I respect that, I mentioned I don't think the film is terrible, but it's surely flawed. You've gotten angry - you're mad about the fact I didn't enjoy this film like you thing I should, and you've gotten defensive. Are you Mr Snyder? See, I could try sarcasm... isn't gonna help me reach my point.
I like to use sarcasm when I hear people saying funny stuff. I'm not angry. Sarcastic people aren't angry...that is the point of sarcasm. You're laughing at the other person. And I seem to be reaching my point pretty well.
And that isn't sarcasm and if it is it's dumb. Let's assume that I'm actually mad. That means you could never get angry for someone criticizing something you like because you didn't create it? Okay.
Build relationships between the characters in the film - set stuff up. Clark Kent didn't enter the Bugle until the end of the film. Why? I've know idea - if he really did enter the Bugle before he donned the tights, I would've liked that much more - he could've interacted with the rest of the Daily Bugle... get us attached to those characters and set them up for Batman v Superman.
Fail. I'm too lazy to pull up some memes and gifs.
So you do want a romance? And he didn't enter the Bugle because that wasn't his job...He was just a farm kid who(if you paid attention to the movie) seemingly had a bit of social problems.
You would have liked it more of he went inside of a building before he wore tights? That makes the movie better? How does that even take away from the action you were talking about? And you don't know teh plot ov Batman v Superman. You don't know if these characters are even relevant. That's the thing about you people who love to judge stuff before it comes out. Why would we need to be attatched to someone like Perry?
How would that even be relevant to what was going on?
And the aftermath, in all honesty, felt rushed to me... how did snapping Zod's neck effect the character? Because, surely, having him fall to his knees and scream doesn't really sum everything up. This is similar to what MARVEL did with the "Shawarma" scene in Avengers. Because Iron Man is clearly meant to be broken... yet he's still eating Shawarma.
Yet I'm not sure which of the two is worst...
You complain about how it was 40 minutes and was too long...and then you say it was rushed, Makes PERFECT SENSE.
Has it even dawned on you that they are going to show how it effected Superman in Batman v Superman and you sitting here talking about how it will be nothing but action makes about 0 sense and that just voided your arguement right there? The only way we could possibly see how it effected him is interactions with other villians. Is he going all out?
Don't tell me you expected another villian to pop up to text Superman.
Heh, heh. If they're gonna do a villain set up - they could do it similar to Batman Begins and how they set up The Joker. Don't try to be funny, you really aren't. I didn't say the action was rushed. There was too much action - but the aftermath, how Clark was effected after the battle... that was rushed.
If TASM, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight Rises etc's fights weren't 40 minutes long, and they spent more runtime developing aspect... then why didn't this? Tell me.
Your complaint was that it didn'ts how how it effected him, I replied with how theu would have to do another villan within the same movie, you say how they could have done a villian set-up....
Even if they did a villan set up, that doesn't show how killing Zod effected him. And I thought this was going pretty well-almost had me thinking I could do stand up comedy. Nah, but using logic means you're trying to be funny because things are funny because they are out of the ordinary, just as logic is for you.
So the aftermatch was rushed? Because he instantly cried after snapping someone's neck it means it was rushed? Was he supposed to walk off-screen emotionless? We never saw how it effected him psychologically so how could you possibly say it's rushed? Especially when Zack Snyder said we will see that develop as an explanation as to why he chose for Superman to snap Zods neck?
Superman's right wasn't even 40 minutes long. I've already pointed out that it was only 5 minutes each. If you want to count TDKR then about the whole movie was an action sequence. What the hell does "developing aspect" even mean? What aspect?
A guy complaining about too much action when there's 3 super powered villians trying to kill you and a machine destroying the city like you could actually reduce the action. What you say already makes 0 sense anyways being the fact that Superman had plenty of character development. Just because there was a lot of action doesn't mean there wasn't any character development. The movie was over 2 hours.
When I mentioned TDKR and Batman Begins - I meant to say the final fight sequence wasn't as long as MOS. And, no, I didn't have a problem with Superman screaming after snapping Zod's neck - but there was nothing else to it. Imagine TASM2 ended with Gwen Stacy's death and only showed Peter screaming - that just isn't enough - they showed us Peter visiting her grave every day... that's how you do a send off.
@jayc1324: I doubt Cyborg and Aquaman will have even 4 minutes of screen time combined.
4 minutes eh? I'll take that bet (I got the gambling jitters)
When I mentioned TDKR and Batman Begins - I meant to say the final fight sequence wasn't as long as MOS. And, no, I didn't have a problem with Superman screaming after snapping Zod's neck - but there was nothing else to it. Imagine TASM2 ended with Gwen Stacy's death and only showed Peter screaming - that just isn't enough - they showed us Peter visiting her grave every day... that's how you do a send off.
How long could Batman's fight scene possibly be? You are ignoring who the characters are and what the characters are capable--more importantly, what is the plot of the movie. You even mentioning the Batman movie's and blaming it on Zack Snyder doesn't even make much sense when David Goyer...the same guy that helped write the Batman films. Anyways...
What was needed? Spider-Man helped kill Electro(something he doesn't really do) and there was nothing to it. Do you expect Superman to go to Zods grave and give him some flowers? Go to some counciling classes talking about how he snapped Zods neck? Get all depressed afterwards(which shouldn't be the case since HE'S SUPERMAN and the main complaint was that it was too dark)? Zod is not Superman's girlfriend. He doesn't care about Zod enough to visit his grave, the same guy that killed him. But what they did show is show is Johnathan's death effected him ANd he was shown at the grave site. But that just isn't good enough for you...
Zack Snyder already said that when Superman snapped Zods neck it will be revealed how it effected him in future movies. It's funny how you say you want to see that yet you aren't looking foward to the Batman v Superman movie. People leave cliffgangers and pieces in movies that are there for anticipation all of the time.
I would say AoU since Avengers are hot right now, that they just had to put out a movie and sit back. But that's wrong, they have people in their hands, but the still got to work hard. Which after GoG, shows that they do, even with cash ins.
Both Sides are gunning, hoping for the best
I think I'm excited for Batman v. Superman now, man. Yes - I liked Avengers more then MOS, but overall, BvS has got A LOT more new stuff to offer - and overall... I'm not really looking forward to Quicksilver or Scarlet Witch because that's lame. Batman v. Superman has got:
Follow up of Superman breaking Zod's neck, Superman becoming the Superman of the comics, Mild mannered Clark Kent explored into this universe (Cavill looked the part), Batman brought back to the big screen again - and I'm looking forward to how well Ben Affleck does, Gotham introduced into this Universe, Wonder Woman's big screen debut, Aquaman, Cyborg, Lex Luthor, Alfred Pennyworth, returning of Perry White, Universe Building, Return of Superman, Daily Planet, Batman and Superman brought together for the first time to the big screen, etc. etc.
It sounds exciting so I'm looking forward to see how it does nonetheless.
I'm still going to have to say BvS will be better, "better" might be the wrong word, but that's what the op asked. I'm more excited for BvS than I am for AOU, from the leaked teaser to the leaked/and official photos, this movie looks awesome. I can't wait to see my two favorite comic book characters fight each other on the big screen.
I'd probably die if Superman gives Batman the kryptonite ring lol...
If Avengers pulls the same stunts they did in the first and make it an open mike night BvS will stomp. DC does villains better than Marvel, while Marvels stories are so generic most of the times that anyone can enjoy them.
Why are people still arguing about this. You can't say with any sort of credibility one way or another.
You might as well just say "I'm a Marvel Fanboy, Avengers will be better" or "I'm a DC fanboy, BvS will be better"
And ultimately since movies are subjective, it doesn't matter anyway since no one can tell you if you like a movie more or less
BvS is only hyped because of the trio.. nothing else thats significant really.
People hear Batman, Superman, and Wonder Women (The Biggest Mainstream heros of all time) are in one movie everyones Fan Panties drop.
AoU, people are excited for the second part of the Best Superhero Movie to date (not subjective/Opinion) to come out.
Everyone in there mothers are going to talk about how Batman did this and Batman did that alittle “Superman and Wonder Woman were awesome too” here and there, but really lets be honest.
A new solo Batman movie would do so much better than a Superman Lex Luthor and Wonder Women Movie.
With Avengers people love each major character because they're different and have stories. The fact those charcters have seperate movies (good or bad yet still gave us hints of an Avengers movie) Then together they made the Best Superhero Movie that had great charcters and a good story.
I think I'm excited for Batman v. Superman now, man. Yes - I liked Avengers more then MOS, but overall, BvS has got A LOT more new stuff to offer - and overall... I'm not really looking forward to Quicksilver or Scarlet Witch because that's lame. Batman v. Superman has got:
Follow up of Superman breaking Zod's neck, Superman becoming the Superman of the comics, Mild mannered Clark Kent explored into this universe (Cavill looked the part), Batman brought back to the big screen again - and I'm looking forward to how well Ben Affleck does, Gotham introduced into this Universe, Wonder Woman's big screen debut, Aquaman, Cyborg, Lex Luthor, Alfred Pennyworth, returning of Perry White, Universe Building, Return of Superman, Daily Planet, Batman and Superman brought together for the first time to the big screen, etc. etc.
It sounds exciting so I'm looking forward to see how it does nonetheless.
Gotham isn't part of the DCCU as far as I'm concerned.
So, they're gonna have Batman and Alfred... but not Gotham? Why would there exist a bat symbol in Gotham? And didn't you see Superman's costume reveal? The background was most likely Gotham. Anyways, I'm speculating but that's what I'm hoping for...
So, they're gonna have Batman and Alfred... but not Gotham? Why would there exist a bat symbol in Gotham? And didn't you see Superman's costume reveal? The background was most likely Gotham. Anyways, I'm speculating but that's what I'm hoping for...
You're talking about the TV show or within the cinematic universe?
I'm talking about the city... not the TV Show.
Oh. Nvm.
BvS if they get it right but saying that the best film lined up currently if they get it spot on is Deadpool.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment