Let's go back to the World's Best Curry... 170,000 people who eat it, say it's the best curry they've ever eaten. Reviewers say it smells like a hobo's underwear, and that it looks like a dog's dinner. But if you can get past the appearance and the stench, it's apparently the World's Best Curry...
I don't dislike curry. I don't dislike the smell or the taste of it. But I can't eat it without throwing it up, so I avoid it on general principle. So even though I might like the World's Best Curry, I'm not going to bother eating it, just because 170,000 people say it's the World's Best Curry. And equally, reviews that it smells like a hobo's underwear, are not going to encourage me to think "Might be worth a try, just to see what all the fuss is about..." even if I might like the taste, for the simple reason that rather than eating curry when I know I'm allergic to it and will throw it up, I simply don't eat it...
You are still using the same flawed logic, because you are ignoring the fact that a meal does NOT have to be poorly made and does NOT have to contain something you are allergic to for you to simply not like it's TASTE. Or in this case, even it's SMELL, since you haven't seen it. See, I have absolutely no interest in My Little Poney. I've never watched it, and I don't want to. But that doesn't mean it's poorly made or there is anything wrong with it. It is an extremely closed minded attitude to assume something is wrong with something just because you are not personally interested in it.
Also, you are missing something about those critic reviews, although it's not surprising you are missing it since it is not very obvious. If all you do is look at the big number, it says the movie's score is 28%, which is obviously low. But guess what it says right under that?
Average Rating: 5/10
Reviews Counted: 278
Fresh: 79
Rotten: 199
So it actually has an average CRITIC score of 5/10, meaning the critics are split. However, RT is giving more weight the people they call their "top critics".
Anyone who said Snyder never looked at Batman comics clearly has never done so themself.
I've read my fair share of Batman comics over the years and I don't recall him branding anyone or wantonly killing criminals left and right. In general, killing criminals wasn't his style. That isn't what the character is all about to me. If he were a killing machine, they'd have named him the Punisher instead. He may have killed people very, very early on and in a few comics here and there like TDKR, but in general killing criminals wasn't his thing.
But here is the thing: he is basing *this* Batman on TDKR version. Whether you like it or not, TDKR is one of the most popular Batman stories, ever. So he is definitely using the comics, just not the ones you might prefer.
Let's go back to the World's Best Curry... 170,000 people who eat it, say it's the best curry they've ever eaten. Reviewers say it smells like a hobo's underwear, and that it looks like a dog's dinner. But if you can get past the appearance and the stench, it's apparently the World's Best Curry...
I don't dislike curry. I don't dislike the smell or the taste of it. But I can't eat it without throwing it up, so I avoid it on general principle. So even though I might like the World's Best Curry, I'm not going to bother eating it, just because 170,000 people say it's the World's Best Curry. And equally, reviews that it smells like a hobo's underwear, are not going to encourage me to think "Might be worth a try, just to see what all the fuss is about..." even if I might like the taste, for the simple reason that rather than eating curry when I know I'm allergic to it and will throw it up, I simply don't eat it...
You are still using the same flawed logic, because you are ignoring the fact that a meal does NOT have to be poorly made and does NOT have to contain something you are allergic to for you to simply not like it's TASTE. Or in this case, even it's SMELL, since you haven't seen it. See, I have absolutely no interest in My Little Poney. I've never watched it, and I don't want to. But that doesn't mean it's poorly made or there is anything wrong with it. It is an extremely closed minded attitude to assume something is wrong with something just because you are not personally interested in it.
Also, you are missing something about those critic reviews, although it's not surprising you are missing it since it is not very obvious. If all you do is look at the big number, it says the movie's score is 28%, which is obviously low. But guess what it says right under that?
Average Rating: 5/10
Reviews Counted: 278
Fresh: 79
Rotten: 199
So it actually has an average CRITIC score of 5/10, meaning the critics are split. However, RT is giving more weight the people they call their "top critics".
And you're still using the same flawed logic, by not acknowledging that I said that my views on the matter are not open for further discussion
I quite clearly said:
And I haven't said that I think it's a bad film, have I...
I'm saying that I believe the reviewers when they say they thought it was a bad film, because the negative reviews are all focussing on the same things...
And I'm saying that those reviews are not inspiring me to overlook my aforementioned 'three strikes' to watch it...
Which you have deliberately ignored, to try and insist that my decision-making process is flawed...
Let's go back to the World's Best Curry... 170,000 people who eat it, say it's the best curry they've ever eaten. Reviewers say it smells like a hobo's underwear, and that it looks like a dog's dinner. But if you can get past the appearance and the stench, it's apparently the World's Best Curry...
I don't dislike curry. I don't dislike the smell or the taste of it. But I can't eat it without throwing it up, so I avoid it on general principle. So even though I might like the World's Best Curry, I'm not going to bother eating it, just because 170,000 people say it's the World's Best Curry. And equally, reviews that it smells like a hobo's underwear, are not going to encourage me to think "Might be worth a try, just to see what all the fuss is about..." even if I might like the taste, for the simple reason that rather than eating curry when I know I'm allergic to it and will throw it up, I simply don't eat it...
You are still using the same flawed logic, because you are ignoring the fact that a meal does NOT have to be poorly made and does NOT have to contain something you are allergic to for you to simply not like it's TASTE. Or in this case, even it's SMELL, since you haven't seen it. See, I have absolutely no interest in My Little Poney. I've never watched it, and I don't want to. But that doesn't mean it's poorly made or there is anything wrong with it. It is an extremely closed minded attitude to assume something is wrong with something just because you are not personally interested in it.
Also, you are missing something about those critic reviews, although it's not surprising you are missing it since it is not very obvious. If all you do is look at the big number, it says the movie's score is 28%, which is obviously low. But guess what it says right under that?
Average Rating: 5/10
Reviews Counted: 278
Fresh: 79
Rotten: 199
So it actually has an average CRITIC score of 5/10, meaning the critics are split. However, RT is giving more weight the people they call their "top critics".
And you're still using the same flawed logic, by not acknowledging that I said that my views on the matter are not open for further discussion
You are confused. You are posting on a public forum, so everything you say is open to further discussion. You don't have to respond yourself, but everyone else can do so and do not need your permission.
But here is the thing: he is basing *this* Batman on TDKR version. Whether you like it or not, TDKR is one of the most popular Batman stories, ever. So he is definitely using the comics, just not the ones you might prefer.
Well, sure. I understand that much. I can also agree with people who don't care for that particular single interpretation of the character. Even in TDKR, Batman could have easily killed Superman, yet didn't. So yes, to me making the character into a more Punisher like vigilante hell bent on blowing up every criminal in sight doesn't quite fit the character IMO.
Except there are plenty of criminals he doesn't kill in the movie. So when you say "hell bent on blowing up every criminal in sight", you mean "some"?
Except there are plenty of criminals he doesn't kill in the movie. So when you say "hell bent on blowing up every criminal in sight", you mean "some"?
I don't believe Batman would kill anyone if he could avoid it TBH. That's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
That's was not my point. I don't disagree he did kill people, but you specifically said every criminal in sight. Did you think exaggerating helped your argument?
And I'm saying that those reviews are not inspiring me to overlook my aforementioned 'three strikes' to watch it...
Unfortunately, you are now contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that other people's opinions played no part in your decision making process. Now you are bringing up a possibility that reviews could change your mind about seeing the movie(even though you are saying they have failed to do so in this case). But if other people's opinions played no part, then there wouldn't even be the *possibility* of reviews causing you to change your mind.
General consensus from friends who saw it this weekend (paraphrasing from a few emails)...
Movie was a decent popcorn flick, but don't expect it to have any kind of meaningful story.
Snyder clearly never read a Batman comic book as he gets the character near entirely wrong.
Jesse Eisenberg is absolutely terrible.
Film seems like a mashup of disjointed scenes rather than a cohesive narrative (very poor editing).
Final SFX laden battle is ok, but really doesn't do much for the film.
Ending was totally predictable.
All in all around a 1.5 out of 5 stars.
Anyone who said Snyder never looked at Batman comics clearly has never done so themself. Some of the Batman scenes were directly lifted from Miller's Dark Knight Returns, though Snyder actually made Batman LESS lethal than that Batman. In the comics when Batman comes through the wall and takes away the M-60 he shoots the other guy in the head. Miller's Dark Knight comics are the direct source era for this Batman, in fact one of Batman's lines "20 years in Gotham, how many good guys are left... how many stayed that way?" has me wondering if these films will villainize Richard Greyson like Miller did, hope not, always been a big Wingnut myself.
Yeah, Batman generally avoids it, but he does sometimes take a Judge Dredd style where he orders them to give up or else. It's quite true that he's not the Punisher and doesn't think it's his job to KILL criminals, but that doesn't mean he actually cares if they die.
Let's go back to the World's Best Curry... 170,000 people who eat it, say it's the best curry they've ever eaten. Reviewers say it smells like a hobo's underwear, and that it looks like a dog's dinner. But if you can get past the appearance and the stench, it's apparently the World's Best Curry...
I don't dislike curry. I don't dislike the smell or the taste of it. But I can't eat it without throwing it up, so I avoid it on general principle. So even though I might like the World's Best Curry, I'm not going to bother eating it, just because 170,000 people say it's the World's Best Curry. And equally, reviews that it smells like a hobo's underwear, are not going to encourage me to think "Might be worth a try, just to see what all the fuss is about..." even if I might like the taste, for the simple reason that rather than eating curry when I know I'm allergic to it and will throw it up, I simply don't eat it...
You are still using the same flawed logic, because you are ignoring the fact that a meal does NOT have to be poorly made and does NOT have to contain something you are allergic to for you to simply not like it's TASTE. Or in this case, even it's SMELL, since you haven't seen it. See, I have absolutely no interest in My Little Poney. I've never watched it, and I don't want to. But that doesn't mean it's poorly made or there is anything wrong with it. It is an extremely closed minded attitude to assume something is wrong with something just because you are not personally interested in it.
Also, you are missing something about those critic reviews, although it's not surprising you are missing it since it is not very obvious. If all you do is look at the big number, it says the movie's score is 28%, which is obviously low. But guess what it says right under that?
Average Rating: 5/10
Reviews Counted: 278
Fresh: 79
Rotten: 199
So it actually has an average CRITIC score of 5/10, meaning the critics are split. However, RT is giving more weight the people they call their "top critics".
And you're still using the same flawed logic, by not acknowledging that I said that my views on the matter are not open for further discussion
You are confused. You are posting on a public forum, so everything you say is open to further discussion. You don't have to respond yourself, but everyone else can do so and do not need your permission.
To not respond to something, allows an incorrect assumption or statement to go unchallenged, and weakens a person's credibility... Silence is never an answer...
Let's go back to the World's Best Curry... 170,000 people who eat it, say it's the best curry they've ever eaten. Reviewers say it smells like a hobo's underwear, and that it looks like a dog's dinner. But if you can get past the appearance and the stench, it's apparently the World's Best Curry...
I don't dislike curry. I don't dislike the smell or the taste of it. But I can't eat it without throwing it up, so I avoid it on general principle. So even though I might like the World's Best Curry, I'm not going to bother eating it, just because 170,000 people say it's the World's Best Curry. And equally, reviews that it smells like a hobo's underwear, are not going to encourage me to think "Might be worth a try, just to see what all the fuss is about..." even if I might like the taste, for the simple reason that rather than eating curry when I know I'm allergic to it and will throw it up, I simply don't eat it...
You are still using the same flawed logic, because you are ignoring the fact that a meal does NOT have to be poorly made and does NOT have to contain something you are allergic to for you to simply not like it's TASTE. Or in this case, even it's SMELL, since you haven't seen it. See, I have absolutely no interest in My Little Poney. I've never watched it, and I don't want to. But that doesn't mean it's poorly made or there is anything wrong with it. It is an extremely closed minded attitude to assume something is wrong with something just because you are not personally interested in it.
Also, you are missing something about those critic reviews, although it's not surprising you are missing it since it is not very obvious. If all you do is look at the big number, it says the movie's score is 28%, which is obviously low. But guess what it says right under that?
Average Rating: 5/10
Reviews Counted: 278
Fresh: 79
Rotten: 199
So it actually has an average CRITIC score of 5/10, meaning the critics are split. However, RT is giving more weight the people they call their "top critics".
And you're still using the same flawed logic, by not acknowledging that I said that my views on the matter are not open for further discussion
You are confused. You are posting on a public forum, so everything you say is open to further discussion. You don't have to respond yourself, but everyone else can do so and do not need your permission.
To not respond to something, allows an incorrect assumption or statement to go unchallenged, and weakens a person's credibility... Silence is never an answer...
That's fine. I never said you *shouldn't* respond. However, you were the one claiming your comments were not open for discussion, and I was correcting you. You have no control over what is "open for discussion" on a public forum.
And I'm saying that those reviews are not inspiring me to overlook my aforementioned 'three strikes' to watch it...
Unfortunately, you are now contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that other people's opinions played no part in your decision making process. Now you are bringing up a possibility that reviews could change your mind about seeing the movie(even though you are saying they have failed to do so in this case). But if other people's opinions played no part, then there wouldn't even be the *possibility* of reviews causing you to change your mind.
No, that is merely your interpretation of my words... Don't try and put words in my mouth to suit your pedantic trolling purposes...
People's opinions played no part in my decision making process. As soon as the film's details were released, I thought that it sounded like a pile of dogshit, and I decided that I didn't want to watch it. The reviews have not inspired me to watch it (and also were unlikely to do so) None of the reviews of Deadpool make me want to watch that either, no matter how much everyone raves about it, so I am not bringing up the possibility that reviews could change my mind, I was specifically stating that the reviews have not done so in this instance. (equally, they likely could not do so either, a point you are, I believe deliberately, missing)
I don't like the idea of the film. I don't like the casting choices (any of them) I don't like what I've seen of trailers. I don't like what I've read in reviews. I will likely never willingly watch the film...
If you don't agree with that decision, well that's your problem, not mine, but I'm not prepared to further disect or debate my decsions or thoughts. If you like the movie, good for you, at the end of the day, that's all that matters...
And I'm saying that those reviews are not inspiring me to overlook my aforementioned 'three strikes' to watch it...
Unfortunately, you are now contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that other people's opinions played no part in your decision making process. Now you are bringing up a possibility that reviews could change your mind about seeing the movie(even though you are saying they have failed to do so in this case). But if other people's opinions played no part, then there wouldn't even be the *possibility* of reviews causing you to change your mind.
No, that is merely your interpretation of my words... Don't try and put words in my mouth to suit your pedantic trolling purposes...
I am not putting any words in your mouth. You made 2 contradictory points:
1) you said other people's opinions played no part in your decision making
2) then you said the negative reviews were not inspiring you to change your mind
So in your second point, you are suggesting your mind could in fact be changed by other people, even though it was not in this case. But again, if #1 is true, then #2 wouldn't even be a possibility. That is not putting words in your mouth, it is simply pointing out how your own statements don't jive.
And I'm saying that those reviews are not inspiring me to overlook my aforementioned 'three strikes' to watch it...
Unfortunately, you are now contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that other people's opinions played no part in your decision making process. Now you are bringing up a possibility that reviews could change your mind about seeing the movie(even though you are saying they have failed to do so in this case). But if other people's opinions played no part, then there wouldn't even be the *possibility* of reviews causing you to change your mind.
No, that is merely your interpretation of my words... Don't try and put words in my mouth to suit your pedantic trolling purposes...
I am not putting any words in your mouth. You made 2 contradictory points:
1) you said other people's opinions played no part in your decision making
2) then you said the negative reviews were not inspiring you to change your mind
So in your second point, you are suggesting your mind could in fact be changed by other people, even though it was not in this case. But again, if #1 is true, then #2 wouldn't even be a possibility. That is not putting words in your mouth, it is simply pointing out how your own statements don't jive.
They are not contradictory statements, they are two independent and individual statements... Neither requires the other, nor affects the other... If you think they are contradictory, that is because you are overthinking them and looking at alternate interpretations than what I intended...
By disputing my words on my own opinion, when your agreement is neither required nor sought, you are just making yourself look like a pedant...
Go hit up fb or twitter and tell Battfleck how much you enjoyed his performance... I'm sure he'll welcome the kindness...B)
Let's go back to the World's Best Curry... 170,000 people who eat it, say it's the best curry they've ever eaten. Reviewers say it smells like a hobo's underwear, and that it looks like a dog's dinner. But if you can get past the appearance and the stench, it's apparently the World's Best Curry...
I don't dislike curry. I don't dislike the smell or the taste of it. But I can't eat it without throwing it up, so I avoid it on general principle. So even though I might like the World's Best Curry, I'm not going to bother eating it, just because 170,000 people say it's the World's Best Curry. And equally, reviews that it smells like a hobo's underwear, are not going to encourage me to think "Might be worth a try, just to see what all the fuss is about..." even if I might like the taste, for the simple reason that rather than eating curry when I know I'm allergic to it and will throw it up, I simply don't eat it...
You are still using the same flawed logic, because you are ignoring the fact that a meal does NOT have to be poorly made and does NOT have to contain something you are allergic to for you to simply not like it's TASTE. Or in this case, even it's SMELL, since you haven't seen it. See, I have absolutely no interest in My Little Poney. I've never watched it, and I don't want to. But that doesn't mean it's poorly made or there is anything wrong with it. It is an extremely closed minded attitude to assume something is wrong with something just because you are not personally interested in it.
Also, you are missing something about those critic reviews, although it's not surprising you are missing it since it is not very obvious. If all you do is look at the big number, it says the movie's score is 28%, which is obviously low. But guess what it says right under that?
Average Rating: 5/10
Reviews Counted: 278
Fresh: 79
Rotten: 199
So it actually has an average CRITIC score of 5/10, meaning the critics are split. However, RT is giving more weight the people they call their "top critics".
That doesn't show a split or more weight being given to certain critics, it shows that there's a greater than 2 to 1 ratio of negative reviews to positive reviews, the 5/10 average can be explained by poor reviews being in the 3-4/10 range while the positive reviews are on the 8-9/10 range, a difference big enough to push it to the middle despite higher numbers of negative reviews.
Saw it, loved it. Mostly. The character Eisenberg played was a fun & entertaining mad scientist villain; but sucked as Luthor. Meanwhile Affleck managed to be one of the best Batmans ever which also managed to be a better Luthor then this movies Luthor (*SPOILERish: dislikes Supes; starting to hate Supes guts; gets Powerarmor and Kryptonite Spear to save mankind from this Alien*).
I'm pretty sure their goal is not to make more than Deadpool, but to make a profit. As long as they do that I don't think they're really going to feel bad about the movie. Besides... Deadpool set a REALLY high mark... I don't think Fox has any idea how to beat that.
Well sure, of course they are looking to make a profit. Reason I brought up Deadpool and the money it's making is that Deadpool doesn't have anywhere near the name recognition they have - Superman (and Batman) is perhaps the most recognizable character on the planet - yet Deadpool is generating bigger box office than MoS, not to mention much better reviews.
Given how expensive BvS was to produce, I imagine it's going to need to well exceed the billion dollar mark to turn a profit. That's just a guess on my part.
They seriously need to release the Main Man (the 90s original) to the big screen as Deadpool answer
They recently hired the writer of the Wonder Woman script (WW is in post-production) to write the Lobo movie. So they are getting going on that one. Leastways Lobo is the DC character I know who refers to himself as the "Main Man".
Cool to know. And of course him; who else; this girl? I bet that face sparkles in the sun
I have not seen Batman V Superman yet, but unfortunately I heard a lot of spoiler talk about it 'cuz I was on a crowded bus with a few people talking about the movie for over 20 minutes. I didn't have headphones so there was no way I could block out what was being said.
I already knew there was going to be a Rated R version that will be released on Blu-Ray before the movie was released. On top of that I've read the pacing of the movie in general is kinda bad and many things were left unexplained. I assume the Blu-Ray version will fill in the gaps especially since Zack Snyder wanted the theatrical release version to be 3 hours long. I am kinda on the fence about watching the movie in the theater. I may simply just wait for the Blu-Ray to be released.
It would have been nice if Gal Gadot did a little bit of weight training to bulk up a bit. Wonder Woman is drawn to be muscular and athletic. I know drawings can be unrealistic, but is something like 5lbs of muscle mass and a better toned body too much to ask?
However, I can understand if Gal Gadot is a naturally slim woman and may not easily be able to build up mass because I personally have problems building muscle mass. Many years ago back in high school and college I took weight training. Even though I was eating 3000+ calories per day at that time and was I able to lift more than 200lbs, my own weight never exceed 155lbs. People just looked at me and scratched their heads.
I like the fact that the Batman in this movie is based on Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. But I think it would have been nice if there were some verbal reasons why the Batman kills in this movie for those people who are unfamiliar with Frank Miller's Batman comics. Something a little more direct than Robin's death (likely Jason Todd from A Death In the Family story arc) and innocent people dying in the fight between Superman and General Zod.
Regarding Superman's death... I think Snyder should have just left him dead in this movie. Superman could have been brought back to life in a later movie for better dramatic effect. If you are going to kill off Superman, then you should not suddenly backpedal only a few minutes later. That makes his death meaningless and implies super heroes cannot die.
And I'm saying that those reviews are not inspiring me to overlook my aforementioned 'three strikes' to watch it...
Unfortunately, you are now contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that other people's opinions played no part in your decision making process. Now you are bringing up a possibility that reviews could change your mind about seeing the movie(even though you are saying they have failed to do so in this case). But if other people's opinions played no part, then there wouldn't even be the *possibility* of reviews causing you to change your mind.
No, that is merely your interpretation of my words... Don't try and put words in my mouth to suit your pedantic trolling purposes...
I am not putting any words in your mouth. You made 2 contradictory points:
1) you said other people's opinions played no part in your decision making
2) then you said the negative reviews were not inspiring you to change your mind
So in your second point, you are suggesting your mind could in fact be changed by other people, even though it was not in this case. But again, if #1 is true, then #2 wouldn't even be a possibility. That is not putting words in your mouth, it is simply pointing out how your own statements don't jive.
They are not contradictory statements, they are two independent and individual statements... Neither requires the other, nor affects the other... If you think they are contradictory, that is because you are overthinking them and looking at alternate interpretations than what I intended...
By disputing my words on my own opinion, when your agreement is neither required nor sought, you are just making yourself look like a pedant...
Ok, instead of resulting to personal attacks, let's try this: here is what I don't understand about your comments. You say that other people's opinions don't factor into your decision making. Fair enough. So my question is, why are you even talking about critics? Why are you even saying that the negative reviews aren't convincing you to change your mind, when nothing any person says would change your mind?
And I'm saying that those reviews are not inspiring me to overlook my aforementioned 'three strikes' to watch it...
Unfortunately, you are now contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that other people's opinions played no part in your decision making process. Now you are bringing up a possibility that reviews could change your mind about seeing the movie(even though you are saying they have failed to do so in this case). But if other people's opinions played no part, then there wouldn't even be the *possibility* of reviews causing you to change your mind.
No, that is merely your interpretation of my words... Don't try and put words in my mouth to suit your pedantic trolling purposes...
I am not putting any words in your mouth. You made 2 contradictory points:
1) you said other people's opinions played no part in your decision making
2) then you said the negative reviews were not inspiring you to change your mind
So in your second point, you are suggesting your mind could in fact be changed by other people, even though it was not in this case. But again, if #1 is true, then #2 wouldn't even be a possibility. That is not putting words in your mouth, it is simply pointing out how your own statements don't jive.
They are not contradictory statements, they are two independent and individual statements... Neither requires the other, nor affects the other... If you think they are contradictory, that is because you are overthinking them and looking at alternate interpretations than what I intended...
By disputing my words on my own opinion, when your agreement is neither required nor sought, you are just making yourself look like a pedant...
Ok, instead of resulting to personal attacks, let's try this: here is what I don't understand about your comments. You say that other people's opinions don't factor into your decision making. Fair enough. So my question is, why are you even talking about critics? Why are you even saying that the negative reviews aren't convincing you to change your mind, when nothing any person says would change your mind?
Because it seemed a more polite and socially acceptable response to comerademoco's friendly recommendation, than "I don't want to watch the TRIBBLE film..."
The opinions of others sometimes can factor in. Very rarely, but they can (depending on the topic) In this instance, as I said, I thought the film sounded like a pile of dogshit since details began being released, and those three reasons I gave, are the reasons why I initially didn't want to watch it. Even the note that Henry Cavill was better than in Man of Steel, was no incentive, because Gal Gadot and Ben Affleck... Even people saying that Ben Affleck has done a good job, is no incentive, because Gal Gadot and Henry Cavill... And people saying about Gal Gadot, well, no surprise, but even if she is amazing, Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck... For me, each or any one of those is a solid strike... The three together, well, that's three strikes, so I think 'no thankyou...'.
Under other circumstances, if reviews of the film were more positive, I might* have at least considered a TV viewing, but the factors mentioned in the reviews, were all of things I would require to be universally praised to even consider overlooking the existing three strikes...
Then I read about Jesse Eisenberger's apparent portrayal of a completely different character to the one he's cast as, so that's yet another strike. Then the mention of Doomsday... Strike five... And now, apparently Superman dies, only to be resurrected within the same movie! Strike six...
So no, the negative reviews were doing nothing to change my mind (but it was just as unlikely that universally positive ones would have done so either (because Strikes one, two and three)
As before, if you liked the film, fantastic, be sure to let Ben Affleck and Zack Snyder know. Artists appreciate good feedback on their projects (even if they don't necessarily thank every single person who comments)
But if that explanation isn't sufficient, I can't clarify any further...
Oh, and regarding your above comment which I missed at the time about someone having no control over what is discussed on a public forum: Yes, that is true, but someone should know to let a subject drop, when the person they are conversing with makes clear they no longer wish to discuss the topic further. That's just good manners...
*Highly unlikely, but a statistical possibility, like winning the lotto...
PS The meme I posted above sums up my feelings 100%...
.
.
.
Regarding Superman's death... I think Snyder should have just left him dead in this movie. Superman could have been brought back to life in a later movie for better dramatic effect. If you are going to kill off Superman, then you should not suddenly backpedal only a few minutes later. That makes his death meaningless and implies super heroes cannot die.
Eh?
If my eyes did not tricked me there was a split second of some vibrating movement on one of the coffins which, again if that was not an imagination since it was a very late night screening, could imply that someone in said coffin might not be dead as a parrot as everybody believes. But other than that the only indicators hes not dead is the comic history this story is based on and the expectancy to see Supes in the JL movies and maybe a MoS2.
Comments
You are still using the same flawed logic, because you are ignoring the fact that a meal does NOT have to be poorly made and does NOT have to contain something you are allergic to for you to simply not like it's TASTE. Or in this case, even it's SMELL, since you haven't seen it. See, I have absolutely no interest in My Little Poney. I've never watched it, and I don't want to. But that doesn't mean it's poorly made or there is anything wrong with it. It is an extremely closed minded attitude to assume something is wrong with something just because you are not personally interested in it.
Also, you are missing something about those critic reviews, although it's not surprising you are missing it since it is not very obvious. If all you do is look at the big number, it says the movie's score is 28%, which is obviously low. But guess what it says right under that?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_v_superman_dawn_of_justice/
So it actually has an average CRITIC score of 5/10, meaning the critics are split. However, RT is giving more weight the people they call their "top critics".
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
But here is the thing: he is basing *this* Batman on TDKR version. Whether you like it or not, TDKR is one of the most popular Batman stories, ever. So he is definitely using the comics, just not the ones you might prefer.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I quite clearly said:
Which you have deliberately ignored, to try and insist that my decision-making process is flawed...
You are confused. You are posting on a public forum, so everything you say is open to further discussion. You don't have to respond yourself, but everyone else can do so and do not need your permission.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Except there are plenty of criminals he doesn't kill in the movie. So when you say "hell bent on blowing up every criminal in sight", you mean "some"?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
That's was not my point. I don't disagree he did kill people, but you specifically said every criminal in sight. Did you think exaggerating helped your argument?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Unfortunately, you are now contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that other people's opinions played no part in your decision making process. Now you are bringing up a possibility that reviews could change your mind about seeing the movie(even though you are saying they have failed to do so in this case). But if other people's opinions played no part, then there wouldn't even be the *possibility* of reviews causing you to change your mind.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing
To not respond to something, allows an incorrect assumption or statement to go unchallenged, and weakens a person's credibility... Silence is never an answer...
That's fine. I never said you *shouldn't* respond. However, you were the one claiming your comments were not open for discussion, and I was correcting you. You have no control over what is "open for discussion" on a public forum.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
People's opinions played no part in my decision making process. As soon as the film's details were released, I thought that it sounded like a pile of dogshit, and I decided that I didn't want to watch it. The reviews have not inspired me to watch it (and also were unlikely to do so) None of the reviews of Deadpool make me want to watch that either, no matter how much everyone raves about it, so I am not bringing up the possibility that reviews could change my mind, I was specifically stating that the reviews have not done so in this instance. (equally, they likely could not do so either, a point you are, I believe deliberately, missing)
I don't like the idea of the film. I don't like the casting choices (any of them) I don't like what I've seen of trailers. I don't like what I've read in reviews. I will likely never willingly watch the film...
If you don't agree with that decision, well that's your problem, not mine, but I'm not prepared to further disect or debate my decsions or thoughts. If you like the movie, good for you, at the end of the day, that's all that matters...
I am not putting any words in your mouth. You made 2 contradictory points:
1) you said other people's opinions played no part in your decision making
2) then you said the negative reviews were not inspiring you to change your mind
So in your second point, you are suggesting your mind could in fact be changed by other people, even though it was not in this case. But again, if #1 is true, then #2 wouldn't even be a possibility. That is not putting words in your mouth, it is simply pointing out how your own statements don't jive.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
They are not contradictory statements, they are two independent and individual statements... Neither requires the other, nor affects the other... If you think they are contradictory, that is because you are overthinking them and looking at alternate interpretations than what I intended...
By disputing my words on my own opinion, when your agreement is neither required nor sought, you are just making yourself look like a pedant...
Go hit up fb or twitter and tell Battfleck how much you enjoyed his performance... I'm sure he'll welcome the kindness...B)
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
That doesn't show a split or more weight being given to certain critics, it shows that there's a greater than 2 to 1 ratio of negative reviews to positive reviews, the 5/10 average can be explained by poor reviews being in the 3-4/10 range while the positive reviews are on the 8-9/10 range, a difference big enough to push it to the middle despite higher numbers of negative reviews.
Cool to know. And of course him; who else; this girl? I bet that face sparkles in the sun
BTW one source I found for those that care: http://screenrant.com/lobo-movie-jason-fuchs-screenwriter-wonder-woman/
I already knew there was going to be a Rated R version that will be released on Blu-Ray before the movie was released. On top of that I've read the pacing of the movie in general is kinda bad and many things were left unexplained. I assume the Blu-Ray version will fill in the gaps especially since Zack Snyder wanted the theatrical release version to be 3 hours long. I am kinda on the fence about watching the movie in the theater. I may simply just wait for the Blu-Ray to be released.
It would have been nice if Gal Gadot did a little bit of weight training to bulk up a bit. Wonder Woman is drawn to be muscular and athletic. I know drawings can be unrealistic, but is something like 5lbs of muscle mass and a better toned body too much to ask?
However, I can understand if Gal Gadot is a naturally slim woman and may not easily be able to build up mass because I personally have problems building muscle mass. Many years ago back in high school and college I took weight training. Even though I was eating 3000+ calories per day at that time and was I able to lift more than 200lbs, my own weight never exceed 155lbs. People just looked at me and scratched their heads.
I like the fact that the Batman in this movie is based on Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. But I think it would have been nice if there were some verbal reasons why the Batman kills in this movie for those people who are unfamiliar with Frank Miller's Batman comics. Something a little more direct than Robin's death (likely Jason Todd from A Death In the Family story arc) and innocent people dying in the fight between Superman and General Zod.
Regarding Superman's death... I think Snyder should have just left him dead in this movie. Superman could have been brought back to life in a later movie for better dramatic effect. If you are going to kill off Superman, then you should not suddenly backpedal only a few minutes later. That makes his death meaningless and implies super heroes cannot die.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Ok, instead of resulting to personal attacks, let's try this: here is what I don't understand about your comments. You say that other people's opinions don't factor into your decision making. Fair enough. So my question is, why are you even talking about critics? Why are you even saying that the negative reviews aren't convincing you to change your mind, when nothing any person says would change your mind?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The opinions of others sometimes can factor in. Very rarely, but they can (depending on the topic) In this instance, as I said, I thought the film sounded like a pile of dogshit since details began being released, and those three reasons I gave, are the reasons why I initially didn't want to watch it. Even the note that Henry Cavill was better than in Man of Steel, was no incentive, because Gal Gadot and Ben Affleck... Even people saying that Ben Affleck has done a good job, is no incentive, because Gal Gadot and Henry Cavill... And people saying about Gal Gadot, well, no surprise, but even if she is amazing, Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck... For me, each or any one of those is a solid strike... The three together, well, that's three strikes, so I think 'no thankyou...'.
Under other circumstances, if reviews of the film were more positive, I might* have at least considered a TV viewing, but the factors mentioned in the reviews, were all of things I would require to be universally praised to even consider overlooking the existing three strikes...
Then I read about Jesse Eisenberger's apparent portrayal of a completely different character to the one he's cast as, so that's yet another strike. Then the mention of Doomsday... Strike five... And now, apparently Superman dies, only to be resurrected within the same movie! Strike six...
So no, the negative reviews were doing nothing to change my mind (but it was just as unlikely that universally positive ones would have done so either (because Strikes one, two and three)
As before, if you liked the film, fantastic, be sure to let Ben Affleck and Zack Snyder know. Artists appreciate good feedback on their projects (even if they don't necessarily thank every single person who comments)
But if that explanation isn't sufficient, I can't clarify any further...
Oh, and regarding your above comment which I missed at the time about someone having no control over what is discussed on a public forum: Yes, that is true, but someone should know to let a subject drop, when the person they are conversing with makes clear they no longer wish to discuss the topic further. That's just good manners...
*Highly unlikely, but a statistical possibility, like winning the lotto...
PS The meme I posted above sums up my feelings 100%...
Eh?
If my eyes did not tricked me there was a split second of some vibrating movement on one of the coffins which, again if that was not an imagination since it was a very late night screening, could imply that someone in said coffin might not be dead as a parrot as everybody believes. But other than that the only indicators hes not dead is the comic history this story is based on and the expectancy to see Supes in the JL movies and maybe a MoS2.
Well, that is an interesting change of position. Thanks for clarifying
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008