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
Yeah, that's right there were TWO of Nuclear Man in the original script.... the prototype was completely cut from the theatrical release. Mark Pillow played the second one. Mark's comment about how he felt sorry for Clive Mantle(the Nuclear Man prototype)... well it definitely makes me wonder what the producers were thinking...
Not going to see it. I was a little interested when it was Batman vs Superman, so I figured they were going to do Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. Which was a great book. But then I see a trailer ..and who is in it.... Doomsday...
Yeah, Just No. The Doomsday Arc could've been a whole TRILOGY on its own merits.
But as soon as I saw that clip, all hope I had for the movie evaporated.
There's no way they can do those Arcs justice in that span of time. Its gonna be worse then dog TRIBBLE.
Can't believe DC messed up 2 great arcs in ONE fell swoop. Epic failure.
The sad part is all they had to do was pay Frank Miller...but the greedy jerks, decided "they" could do it better without him. Smh. Another Hollywood Hype failure.
You are right and you are wrong, taylor. I don't think it was worse than dog ****, but they didn't really do it justice.
The movie just doesn't flow right. The individual scenes often seem good enough, but they don't gel together in a neat story. And even then, the dialog in the movie seems to be limited to short sound bytes of each character, not actual dialog with actual (super)human interaction.
And the final fight seems more like an visual effects overload than part of a story.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
- I didn't particularly enjoy Man of Steel
- I don't want to see Ben Affleck in what looks like a bad cosplay batsuit
- I would never cast Gal Gadot (who I absolutely adore) as Wonder Woman
That's three strikes, so it goes in the 'not going to watch' pile along with Episode VII and Ghostbusters...
Just watched it last night...
I can tell you... it is not as bad as Man of Steel... its worth the watch...
I can't see them actually doing 3 feature movies just for Doomsday. I could see a lead up that didn't have Doomsday in it, then Doomsday, then maybe aftermath, but not 3 movies that actually had Doomsday in them.
I can't see them actually doing 3 feature movies just for Doomsday. I could see a lead up that didn't have Doomsday in it, then Doomsday, then maybe aftermath, but not 3 movies that actually had Doomsday in them.
I don't *think* he meant 3 for Doomsday himself, but rather 3 for the "death & return" arc. There are actually 3 arcs to that story, "death", "world without", and "return", although "return" is as long as the first 2 combined. Ah, memories of old comics
I liked the Man of Steel, I liked this one as well. Just wished they showed more Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. I cannot wait to see that one next year. The outfit she wore would look awesome on my Orion
I liked the Man of Steel, I liked this one as well. Just wished they showed more Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. I cannot wait to see that one next year. The outfit she wore would look awesome on my Orion
I didn't like MoS, but liked this one a lot. I didn't like MoS because...pretty much all of the 'young clark' scenes. I actually tried watching it again after seeing BvS, but I couldn't finish. The part where he's hiding in the closet(no pun intended) at school and his mom is outside the door and he says "the world's too big mom" made me cringe. I hate that kind of "chessiness". That said, I know that is completely subjective, but that's just my preferences. And fortunately for me, this new movie didn't really have any of that kind of thing in it
The Doomsday arc spanned a whole lot of comics... Death of Superman series Funeral for a Friend series Rebirth series.
That's a good stack of comic books right there. Something like 20 or 30. Maybe more. Would have to check my collection for an exact count, but thats my best guess off the top of my head.
Then if we add in the Frank Miller Dark Knight series, that's another 2 full length graphic novels.
This is a Whole lot of material they needed to cover. Far too much for a standalone film.
I just don't get why DC did it this way. Wasn't the Batman Vs Superman thing enough for one movie ?
If anything, Doomsday should have been used only as a teaser into the next film. Shown landing in his pod after the credits or something.
On a positive note, I heard Affleck makes a solid Batman. Which isn't surprising, given his gritty performance in The Town, I figured he could pull it off.
I may have to watch it on satellite when its made available just to see how he does. But I won't be expecting a well crafted story by any means.
I just got back from seeing this movie and I have a few words of advice: DONT LISTEN TO THE CRITICS! and DONT LISTEN TO THE CRITICS... AT ALL,,, EVER!
Affleck is a GREAT batman! Gal Gadot is a GREAT WW! Cavill is MUCH better in this movie than in Man of Steel!
This movie is VERY different in tone, and cinematography than the marvel movies. It starts off a little slow, but doesn't disappoint ( or at least didn't disappoint me)
I went in with medium to low expectations and I was NOT disappointed at all!
I can honestly say after reading some of the posts, and seeing how many people are poking holes in this movie after saying
" I haven't seen it" I am a little disappointed. Everyone is entitles to opinions, however INFORMED opinions are the only ones that I personally go by, and even then, I inform myself,, then form my own opinion. The critics are WRONG about this movie!
Anyone who is on the fence and is leaning towards NOT seeing this movie because of what someone else says, my only advice is GO SEE IT!!!! Then again,, by giving that advice I am doing the opposite of what many people here are saying, so, does that make me a contrarian? Sure,, why not.. I can live with that.
*************************** Fleet Admiral In charge of Bacon Fighting 5th Attack Squadron The Devils Henchman
The Doomsday arc spanned a whole lot of comics...
Death of Superman series
Funeral for a Friend series
Rebirth series.
That's a good stack of comic books right there.
Something like 20 or 30. Maybe more. Would have to check my collection for an exact count, but thats my best guess off the top of my head.
I've read a lot of them, and honestly... a lot of them were filler. That arc was planned to be a certain length, it's not like the writers simply kept writing story until they were done.
I just got back from seeing this movie and I have a few words of advice: DONT LISTEN TO THE CRITICS! and DONT LISTEN TO THE CRITICS... AT ALL,,, EVER!
I've seen this reaction from a lot of people, and while I understand it(because I liked the movie a LOT), I have to take issue. Saying "don't listen to the critics" is telling people not to listen to the people who (collectively) don't like it. That is closed minded. A person should be willing to listen to all viewpoints, not shut out those they disagree with. The point is, a person should make up their OWN mind, not do what others tell them to do. That includes both the critics *AND* the fans of the movie.
I just got back from seeing this movie and I have a few words of advice: DONT LISTEN TO THE CRITICS! and DONT LISTEN TO THE CRITICS... AT ALL,,, EVER!
I've seen this reaction from a lot of people, and while I understand it(because I liked the movie a LOT), I have to take issue. Saying "don't listen to the critics" is telling people not to listen to the people who (collectively) don't like it. That is closed minded. A person should be willing to listen to all viewpoints, not shut out those they disagree with. The point is, a person should make up their OWN mind, not do what others tell them to do. That includes both the critics *AND* the fans of the movie.
Most critics don't say anything worth listening to, that's why Siskel and Ebert were popular. They actually said something worth listening to.
I liked the Man of Steel, I liked this one as well. Just wished they showed more Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. I cannot wait to see that one next year. The outfit she wore would look awesome on my Orion
I didn't like MoS, but liked this one a lot. I didn't like MoS because...pretty much all of the 'young clark' scenes. I actually tried watching it again after seeing BvS, but I couldn't finish. The part where he's hiding in the closet(no pun intended) at school and his mom is outside the door and he says "the world's too big mom" made me cringe. I hate that kind of "chessiness". That said, I know that is completely subjective, but that's just my preferences. And fortunately for me, this new movie didn't really have any of that kind of thing in it
That too was what I least liked about the first one but I understand why they did it, they wanted us to have some story of him growing up and getting his powers, also his mom/dad played a big part in who he is and still is. I feel it would have been missing some back ground history without it. It doesn't take long to get through those parts.
Over all I think they are on the right track with Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman and the Justice League. I'm looking forward to the Justice League. Maybe I'm getting burned out on marvel universe civil war coming up. I didnt see the last Cap or avengers at the theater. I havent figured out why just yet but nothing in them said "You got to see this now"
- I didn't particularly enjoy Man of Steel
- I don't want to see Ben Affleck in what looks like a bad cosplay batsuit
- I would never cast Gal Gadot (who I absolutely adore) as Wonder Woman
That's three strikes, so it goes in the 'not going to watch' pile along with Episode VII and Ghostbusters...
Just watched it last night...
I can tell you... it is not as bad as Man of Steel... its worth the watch...
Thanks for the recommendation, but from the mostly-negative, but extremely consistent (to each other) reviews I've read (and given that it never interested me to start with) I'm happy to give this movie a miss
- I didn't particularly enjoy Man of Steel
- I don't want to see Ben Affleck in what looks like a bad cosplay batsuit
- I would never cast Gal Gadot (who I absolutely adore) as Wonder Woman
That's three strikes, so it goes in the 'not going to watch' pile along with Episode VII and Ghostbusters...
Just watched it last night...
I can tell you... it is not as bad as Man of Steel... its worth the watch...
Thanks for the recommendation, but from the mostly-negative, but extremely consistent (to each other) reviews I've read (and given that it never interested me to start with) I'm happy to give this movie a miss
If you don't want to see the movie, that's fine. I get that. What I don't get is having a completely 1 sided view of the situation. For example, you just cited the very low critic reviews, which is true. However, what you completely ignored is that over ONE HUNDRED and SEVENTY THOUSAND people have also rated the movie:
And as you can see, that score is a lot higher than the 278 critics who rated it. So again, if you don't want to see it, that's fine. But I don't understand your logic. How is it you are willing to accept the view of 278 critics as true, but not accept 170,000 people?
- I didn't particularly enjoy Man of Steel
- I don't want to see Ben Affleck in what looks like a bad cosplay batsuit
- I would never cast Gal Gadot (who I absolutely adore) as Wonder Woman
That's three strikes, so it goes in the 'not going to watch' pile along with Episode VII and Ghostbusters...
Just watched it last night...
I can tell you... it is not as bad as Man of Steel... its worth the watch...
Thanks for the recommendation, but from the mostly-negative, but extremely consistent (to each other) reviews I've read (and given that it never interested me to start with) I'm happy to give this movie a miss
If you don't want to see the movie, that's fine. I get that. What I don't get is having a completely 1 sided view of the situation. For example, you just cited the very low critic reviews, which is true. However, what you completely ignored is that over ONE HUNDRED and SEVENTY THOUSAND people have also rated the movie:
And as you can see, that score is a lot higher than the 278 critics who rated it. So again, if you don't want to see it, that's fine. But I don't understand your logic. How is it you are willing to accept the view of 278 critics as true, but not accept 170,000 people?
For the simple reason that, at the end of the day, those opinions play no part in my decision making process, so the numbers are irrelevant to me... Quite simply, I don't want to watch Henry Cavill as Superman... I don't want to see Gal Gadot (who I absolutely adore) as Wonder Woman, and I don't want to see Ben Affleck as Batman... Even if the reviews were entirely positive (such as with Deadpool) I still wouldn't want to watch it, (as I don't want to see Deadpool) simply for my own knowledge of the film(s) not offering something which appeals to me. That the reviews have been so consistent, and quite frankly damning of not just the film, but of Zack Snyder's handling of it as well, that's just strikes four and five... The reviews are the 'slapping of the spade' on the freshly filled in grave of my interest in the movie, which was killed essentially as soon as the details of it were released...
- I didn't particularly enjoy Man of Steel
- I don't want to see Ben Affleck in what looks like a bad cosplay batsuit
- I would never cast Gal Gadot (who I absolutely adore) as Wonder Woman
That's three strikes, so it goes in the 'not going to watch' pile along with Episode VII and Ghostbusters...
Just watched it last night...
I can tell you... it is not as bad as Man of Steel... its worth the watch...
Thanks for the recommendation, but from the mostly-negative, but extremely consistent (to each other) reviews I've read (and given that it never interested me to start with) I'm happy to give this movie a miss
If you don't want to see the movie, that's fine. I get that. What I don't get is having a completely 1 sided view of the situation. For example, you just cited the very low critic reviews, which is true. However, what you completely ignored is that over ONE HUNDRED and SEVENTY THOUSAND people have also rated the movie:
And as you can see, that score is a lot higher than the 278 critics who rated it. So again, if you don't want to see it, that's fine. But I don't understand your logic. How is it you are willing to accept the view of 278 critics as true, but not accept 170,000 people?
For the simple reason that, at the end of the day, those opinions play no part in my decision making process, so the numbers are irrelevant to me...
Like I said, if you just don't want to see the movie, that's completely fine. If you don't like the actors, or the story, or the director, that's all fine. But there seems to be a slight contradiction between your last 2 posts. In one, you were saying that you were happy to give it a pass because of the negative reviews you have read. In the other you are saying that other people's opinions don't factor into your decision making process.
I guess you are justifying it in your mind by saying you already made the decision, and the reviews are just reinforcing your opinion, but to be honest that just echo chamber mentality. You are only accepting as valid the view of a small minority of people that happen to agree with your view, but ignoring the 170,000 that liked it. To be clear, I'm not saying you are doing anything "wrong"; some people definitely enjoy their echo chamber.
- I didn't particularly enjoy Man of Steel
- I don't want to see Ben Affleck in what looks like a bad cosplay batsuit
- I would never cast Gal Gadot (who I absolutely adore) as Wonder Woman
That's three strikes, so it goes in the 'not going to watch' pile along with Episode VII and Ghostbusters...
Just watched it last night...
I can tell you... it is not as bad as Man of Steel... its worth the watch...
Thanks for the recommendation, but from the mostly-negative, but extremely consistent (to each other) reviews I've read (and given that it never interested me to start with) I'm happy to give this movie a miss
If you don't want to see the movie, that's fine. I get that. What I don't get is having a completely 1 sided view of the situation. For example, you just cited the very low critic reviews, which is true. However, what you completely ignored is that over ONE HUNDRED and SEVENTY THOUSAND people have also rated the movie:
And as you can see, that score is a lot higher than the 278 critics who rated it. So again, if you don't want to see it, that's fine. But I don't understand your logic. How is it you are willing to accept the view of 278 critics as true, but not accept 170,000 people?
For the simple reason that, at the end of the day, those opinions play no part in my decision making process, so the numbers are irrelevant to me...
Like I said, if you just don't want to see the movie, that's completely fine. If you don't like the actors, or the story, or the director, that's all fine. But there seems to be a slight contradiction between your last 2 posts. In one, you were saying that you were happy to give it a pass because of the negative reviews you have read. In the other you are saying that other people's opinions don't factor into your decision making process.
I guess you are justifying it in your mind by saying you already made the decision, and the reviews are just reinforcing your opinion, but to be honest that just echo chamber mentality. You are only accepting as valid the view of a small minority of people that happen to agree with your view, but ignoring the 170,000 that liked it. To be clear, I'm not saying you are doing anything "wrong"; some people definitely enjoy their echo chamber.
Precisely
Not so... I'm not 'only' accepting them because they agree with me... I haven't seen the film, so I don't actually have an opinion on the things which they are commenting upon (such as the flow and pacing and structure of the film) therefore they can't agree with me, or more accurately, I can't agree with them... But yes, I am ignoring the 170,000 that liked it in just the same way, that even if 170,000 people said that a particular curry dish was the tastiest meal they'd Ever Eaten, I still wouldn't eat it, because I already know that I am allergic to curry, and eating it makes me violently sick within minutes of consumption. Wouldn't matter if the food critics were saying that it looked like a dog's dinner, or that it stank like a hobo's underwear, I'd still know that eating it wouldn't agree with me, so I just wouldn't eat it...
So what you're seeing as a contradiction, is this: I don't care for the prefessional reviewers opinions any more than I care for the viewing public's opinions. I don't want to see the movie, because of the three main names in it (and frankly, Jesse Eisenberg sounds appalling too) but the professional reviews, are doing nothing to inspire any interest in the film, because at the end of the day, it sounds like it has been terribly made.
To go back to a food analogy, someone could whack a steak with a dirty baseball bat, jump up and down on it, and then take a blow-torch to it... Some folks might be prepared to eat it and think it tastes great, but I wouldn't be in any hurry to eat it myself, even if they said it was the best steak ever...
Not going to see it.
I was a little interested when it was Batman vs Superman, so I figured they were going to do Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. Which was a great book.
But then I see a trailer ..and who is in it.... Doomsday...
Yeah, Just No.
The Doomsday Arc could've been a whole TRILOGY on its own merits.
But as soon as I saw that clip, all hope I had for the movie evaporated.
There's no way they can do those Arcs justice in that span of time. Its gonna be worse then dog TRIBBLE.
Can't believe DC messed up 2 great arcs in ONE fell swoop. Epic failure.
The sad part is all they had to do was pay Frank Miller...but the greedy jerks, decided "they" could do it better without him. Smh.
Another Hollywood Hype failure.
Oh don't worry. Snyder didn't mess up two great arcs in one swoop.
He messed up FIVE great arcs in one swoop!
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP"
- I didn't particularly enjoy Man of Steel
- I don't want to see Ben Affleck in what looks like a bad cosplay batsuit
- I would never cast Gal Gadot (who I absolutely adore) as Wonder Woman
That's three strikes, so it goes in the 'not going to watch' pile along with Episode VII and Ghostbusters...
Just watched it last night...
I can tell you... it is not as bad as Man of Steel... its worth the watch...
Thanks for the recommendation, but from the mostly-negative, but extremely consistent (to each other) reviews I've read (and given that it never interested me to start with) I'm happy to give this movie a miss
If you don't want to see the movie, that's fine. I get that. What I don't get is having a completely 1 sided view of the situation. For example, you just cited the very low critic reviews, which is true. However, what you completely ignored is that over ONE HUNDRED and SEVENTY THOUSAND people have also rated the movie:
And as you can see, that score is a lot higher than the 278 critics who rated it. So again, if you don't want to see it, that's fine. But I don't understand your logic. How is it you are willing to accept the view of 278 critics as true, but not accept 170,000 people?
For the simple reason that, at the end of the day, those opinions play no part in my decision making process, so the numbers are irrelevant to me...
Like I said, if you just don't want to see the movie, that's completely fine. If you don't like the actors, or the story, or the director, that's all fine. But there seems to be a slight contradiction between your last 2 posts. In one, you were saying that you were happy to give it a pass because of the negative reviews you have read. In the other you are saying that other people's opinions don't factor into your decision making process.
I guess you are justifying it in your mind by saying you already made the decision, and the reviews are just reinforcing your opinion, but to be honest that just echo chamber mentality. You are only accepting as valid the view of a small minority of people that happen to agree with your view, but ignoring the 170,000 that liked it. To be clear, I'm not saying you are doing anything "wrong"; some people definitely enjoy their echo chamber.
Precisely
Not so... I'm not 'only' accepting them because they agree with me... I haven't seen the film, so I don't actually have an opinion on the things which they are commenting upon (such as the flow and pacing and structure of the film) therefore they can't agree with me, or more accurately, I can't agree with them... But yes, I am ignoring the 170,000 that liked it in just the same way, that even if 170,000 people said that a particular curry dish was the tastiest meal they'd Ever Eaten, I still wouldn't eat it, because I already know that I am allergic to curry, and eating it makes me violently sick within minutes of consumption. Wouldn't matter if the food critics were saying that it looked like a dog's dinner, or that it stank like a hobo's underwear, I'd still know that eating it wouldn't agree with me, so I just wouldn't eat it...
So what you're seeing as a contradiction, is this: I don't care for the prefessional reviewers opinions any more than I care for the viewing public's opinions. I don't want to see the movie, because of the three main names in it (and frankly, Jesse Eisenberg sounds appalling too) but the professional reviews, are doing nothing to inspire any interest in the film, because at the end of the day, it sounds like it has been terribly made.
To go back to a food analogy, someone could whack a steak with a dirty baseball bat, jump up and down on it, and then take a blow-torch to it... Some folks might be prepared to eat it and think it tastes great, but I wouldn't be in any hurry to eat it myself, even if they said it was the best steak ever...
Here is the problem with your logic: just because you may not personally like something does *NOT* mean it was poorly made. In your first example, you used something you were actually allergic to. In your second example, you invoked the use of a DIRTY baseball bat, which would obviously contaminate the food it touched.
But neither of those examples take into account the reality that two people could both taste the same excellently prepared dish, but simply have different tastes. One may like the taste, the other may not. That does not mean anything is wrong with the dish, nor does it mean the one who did not like it has some allergy to whatever is in it.
Like I said before, it's completely fine to not want to see the movie. But the reality is that a movie is subjective, and just because you may not like it or be interested in it does not mean it is a "bad" movie. There are plenty of movies I do not personally like or enjoy, but I am not so closed minded that I am going to insist they are actually "bad" movies, when I know full well that there are plenty of people that enjoy them for various reasons.
You, however, don't seem to have that understanding. You seem to think that since you don't personally want to see the movie that it must be garbage. Or going back to your food analogy, that it must have been cooked badly just because you do not personally like the taste. It is unfortunate that you have not yet evolved past that limited perspective.
SPOILER HEAVY POST INCOMMING - SKIP IF YOU DON'T WANT MAJOR SPOILERS
I saw a 3D screening Saturday night. I give it a 'C' it was a mediocre film at best. The script REALLY needed a few more drafts and they really needed to settle on a main storyline and service that - and not try to do 'the kitchen sink' analogy of:
- Batman vs Superman
- The Doomsday storyline
- The introduction of ONLY the other 3 characters that will most likely be "The Justice League"
ALL in a single very meandering film. It smacked of 'Spiderrman 3' syndrome with the studio saying; "We HAVE to have all thios in a SINGLE film.
Also, sorry, but the way the scriptwriter handled Lex Luthor <--- he came across more like 'The Joker' than Lex Luthor to me (and a small nitpick, but WHY is the last few Superman outings featuring the character is he always depicted with hair until the VERY END of the film?) And BTW - they do not shave a new prisoner bald when they're incarcerated to begin with; so even there I was like really? This Is why/how Lex Luthor becomes bald?
I really thought WB was finally going to give us a great film, as I like the opening (past the obligatory Batman origin sequence which I did like) with Bruce Wayne being in Metropolis when Zod attacked and seeing the massive and wanton destruction being inflicted by the Kryptonians <--- And that was a really great setup as to why batman would see Superman as a real threat to humanity. I also liked that they showed Lex Luthor trying to frame Superman for more wanton acts - but as soon as Lex luthier appeared on screen in person the film started to meander and fall apart in many ways, Also, I thought it would have been better for the story is Lex ALSO tried to make it appear the destruction of the Senate building (and murder of the somewhat sympathetic Senator (who blocked Luthor's import permit for the Kryptonite) WAS ALSO done by Superman and would have 'sealed the deal' as to Batman wanting to take him out (and would have worked well with Batman's first unsuccessful - then second successful attempt to steal the Kryptonite from Luthor.) Plus, that was the scene where to me (with the jar the senator saw, etc.) where I said, that's not Lex Luthor, that's the Joker. Yes, Lex isn't above killing someone in his way, but he's never vindictive or that petty about it - he does it - and in a way you really can't pin it on him <-- THAT would be in character with Lex Luthor.
Also, the CIA gives Luthor FULL access to the Kryptonian ship with ZERO supervision whatsoever? (Especially when the CIA and Military also know Luthor was responsible for the dead terrorists that was pinned on Superman?) And again, I wouldn't mind if they ALSO showed some 'secret government organization' out to frame/discredit Superman, but they really didn't. The meta-human cameos didn't do much for me either; and just felt tacked on because the studios wanted to say - "See fans, we WILL do a 'Justice League' film eventually...". Then there's the whole 'Lex Kidnaps Clark's mother to make sure he confronts Batman (so Batman can kill him with the Kryptonite) - and Kidnaps and throws Lois off a building to 'bring Superman to him'; so he can send Superman to confront Batman.
^^^
This ENTIRE thing was contrived and somewhat unnecessary IMO because the confrontation motivation HAD ALREADY BEEN setup nicely in that Superman did feel Batman was a Vigilante; and had confronted batman himself saying "The next time they put your signal in the sky DON'T answer it - the Bat's dead!' Which prompted a great response in the film from Batman that I enjoyed - "Do you bleed?" (Superman flies off) "You will." <--- There was your setup. Hell, Batman even put his own Bat Signal on the roof to DRAW a response from Superman - so again the whole Luthor scheme to kidnap Clark's mother was unnecessary. (My point being with a few tweaks they COULD have made the script and film a lot tighter - the foundation was there - but either the studio or the screenwriter wanted to just pile it on with Doomsday and their interpretation of the 'Death of Superman' comic book arc (which if they make more films will come).
Personally I also liked what little they did with the Wonder Woman character (which wasn't much - and I'll bet Doomsday was added just to get her into an action sequence in the film and say 'Here's Wonder Woman'); but again, I think they could have salvaged something where she breaks up the Superman/Batman fight directly; and then they ALL realize Lex was framing Superman and go together to bring him in (Hell, have them fight Lex in his Supersuit Armor - which he's been shown using many times in the comics.) I'm also not against a Superman vs Doomsday film story or a 'Death of Superman' film story - but IMO cramming it all into this film was a bit much and didn't do the final result any favors.
Lastly, I laughed when it was Batman basically saying to Diana: "Hey, we need to form a 'Justice League'..", because anyone who KNOWS this overall comics history of the League; batman would be one of the LAST people to instigate that, and further, once it was formed; would be a part time supporter at best.
Again, I didn't hate the film. I just was disappointed that it was as mediocre as it was when a good foundation was in there.
It's just interesting to me how much I enjoy WB/DCs handling of their current Live Action shows on television, while their big budget film attempts of late turn out mediocre at best. YMMV.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
- I didn't particularly enjoy Man of Steel
- I don't want to see Ben Affleck in what looks like a bad cosplay batsuit
- I would never cast Gal Gadot (who I absolutely adore) as Wonder Woman
That's three strikes, so it goes in the 'not going to watch' pile along with Episode VII and Ghostbusters...
Just watched it last night...
I can tell you... it is not as bad as Man of Steel... its worth the watch...
Thanks for the recommendation, but from the mostly-negative, but extremely consistent (to each other) reviews I've read (and given that it never interested me to start with) I'm happy to give this movie a miss
If you don't want to see the movie, that's fine. I get that. What I don't get is having a completely 1 sided view of the situation. For example, you just cited the very low critic reviews, which is true. However, what you completely ignored is that over ONE HUNDRED and SEVENTY THOUSAND people have also rated the movie:
And as you can see, that score is a lot higher than the 278 critics who rated it. So again, if you don't want to see it, that's fine. But I don't understand your logic. How is it you are willing to accept the view of 278 critics as true, but not accept 170,000 people?
For the simple reason that, at the end of the day, those opinions play no part in my decision making process, so the numbers are irrelevant to me...
Like I said, if you just don't want to see the movie, that's completely fine. If you don't like the actors, or the story, or the director, that's all fine. But there seems to be a slight contradiction between your last 2 posts. In one, you were saying that you were happy to give it a pass because of the negative reviews you have read. In the other you are saying that other people's opinions don't factor into your decision making process.
I guess you are justifying it in your mind by saying you already made the decision, and the reviews are just reinforcing your opinion, but to be honest that just echo chamber mentality. You are only accepting as valid the view of a small minority of people that happen to agree with your view, but ignoring the 170,000 that liked it. To be clear, I'm not saying you are doing anything "wrong"; some people definitely enjoy their echo chamber.
Precisely
Not so... I'm not 'only' accepting them because they agree with me... I haven't seen the film, so I don't actually have an opinion on the things which they are commenting upon (such as the flow and pacing and structure of the film) therefore they can't agree with me, or more accurately, I can't agree with them... But yes, I am ignoring the 170,000 that liked it in just the same way, that even if 170,000 people said that a particular curry dish was the tastiest meal they'd Ever Eaten, I still wouldn't eat it, because I already know that I am allergic to curry, and eating it makes me violently sick within minutes of consumption. Wouldn't matter if the food critics were saying that it looked like a dog's dinner, or that it stank like a hobo's underwear, I'd still know that eating it wouldn't agree with me, so I just wouldn't eat it...
So what you're seeing as a contradiction, is this: I don't care for the prefessional reviewers opinions any more than I care for the viewing public's opinions. I don't want to see the movie, because of the three main names in it (and frankly, Jesse Eisenberg sounds appalling too) but the professional reviews, are doing nothing to inspire any interest in the film, because at the end of the day, it sounds like it has been terribly made.
To go back to a food analogy, someone could whack a steak with a dirty baseball bat, jump up and down on it, and then take a blow-torch to it... Some folks might be prepared to eat it and think it tastes great, but I wouldn't be in any hurry to eat it myself, even if they said it was the best steak ever...
Here is the problem with your logic: just because you may not personally like something does *NOT* mean it was poorly made. In your first example, you used something you were actually allergic to. In your second example, you invoked the use of a DIRTY baseball bat, which would obviously contaminate the food it touched.
But neither of those examples take into account the reality that two people could both taste the same excellently prepared dish, but simply have different tastes. One may like the taste, the other may not. That does not mean anything is wrong with the dish, nor does it mean the one who did not like it has some allergy to whatever is in it.
Like I said before, it's completely fine to not want to see the movie. But the reality is that a movie is subjective, and just because you may not like it or be interested in it does not mean it is a "bad" movie. There are plenty of movies I do not personally like or enjoy, but I am not so closed minded that I am going to insist they are actually "bad" movies, when I know full well that there are plenty of people that enjoy them for various reasons.
You, however, don't seem to have that understanding. You seem to think that since you don't personally want to see the movie that it must be garbage. Or going back to your food analogy, that it must have been cooked badly just because you do not personally like the taste. It is unfortunate that you have not yet evolved past that limited perspective.
For the simple reason that the consistent reviews, have been that Zack Snyder has made a pig's ear of directing the movie... (ie the bad preparation example) That in itself is enough to make me not want to watch it. As much as I enjoy Watchmen, I would have to admit that there are elements of that 'plotlessness' in it, which were one of my issues with Man of Steel, and so hearing that it is another issue in BvS, certainly doesn't inspire me to want to watch it.
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...
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...
I don't stop others eating curry, I don't go around blowing up curry houses, or pissing and shitting in their doorways, or advise people not to eat curry, and, I actually find it quite interesting that there is a curry so strong, someone has to sign a disclaimer before eating. But that doesn't mean I'll ever sit down to eat another one. Ever. Even if I was starving hungry. Because I'd throw it up before I got any nutritional value from it, and possibly lose anything I'd previously eaten, so why waste my time and money just so I can throw up? I can do that any time I want, for free, just by jamming my finger down my throat..
Same as with this film. I have very good reasons why I don't want to watch it. Additionally to those reasons, the reviews, do not encourage me to watch it either, but make it sound like a badly-directed film, which I can pretty much guarantee I would find annoying, so even if it was on TV some Christmas, I'm sure I could find something -- anything -- better to do than watch it... I've recently gotten into dominos... I'd rather play dominos with myself, than ever watch BvS (or Deadpool, or Episode VII, or Suicide Squad, or Aquaman or Justice League) because unlike Tivo, once it's in there, I can't just delete it, and frankly, I'd rather not 'give it storage space'...
So, rather than thinking that you understand my perspectives (your errors are understandable seeing that you are not privvy to all the facts which I am) and think you are finding flaws with my logic, and that you have the right to question them, or that I have the desire to explain them, kindly have the courtessy to accept that this is my view, and it is not going to change, nor are they subject to further dissection...
Comments
They seriously need to release the Main Man (the 90s original) to the big screen as Deadpool answer
Yeah, that's right there were TWO of Nuclear Man in the original script.... the prototype was completely cut from the theatrical release. Mark Pillow played the second one. Mark's comment about how he felt sorry for Clive Mantle(the Nuclear Man prototype)... well it definitely makes me wonder what the producers were thinking...
My character Tsin'xing
I was a little interested when it was Batman vs Superman, so I figured they were going to do Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. Which was a great book.
But then I see a trailer ..and who is in it.... Doomsday...
Yeah, Just No.
The Doomsday Arc could've been a whole TRILOGY on its own merits.
But as soon as I saw that clip, all hope I had for the movie evaporated.
There's no way they can do those Arcs justice in that span of time. Its gonna be worse then dog TRIBBLE.
Can't believe DC messed up 2 great arcs in ONE fell swoop. Epic failure.
The sad part is all they had to do was pay Frank Miller...but the greedy jerks, decided "they" could do it better without him. Smh.
Another Hollywood Hype failure.
The movie just doesn't flow right. The individual scenes often seem good enough, but they don't gel together in a neat story. And even then, the dialog in the movie seems to be limited to short sound bytes of each character, not actual dialog with actual (super)human interaction.
And the final fight seems more like an visual effects overload than part of a story.
Just watched it last night...
I can tell you... it is not as bad as Man of Steel... its worth the watch...
My character Tsin'xing
I don't *think* he meant 3 for Doomsday himself, but rather 3 for the "death & return" arc. There are actually 3 arcs to that story, "death", "world without", and "return", although "return" is as long as the first 2 combined. Ah, memories of old comics
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I didn't like MoS, but liked this one a lot. I didn't like MoS because...pretty much all of the 'young clark' scenes. I actually tried watching it again after seeing BvS, but I couldn't finish. The part where he's hiding in the closet(no pun intended) at school and his mom is outside the door and he says "the world's too big mom" made me cringe. I hate that kind of "chessiness". That said, I know that is completely subjective, but that's just my preferences. And fortunately for me, this new movie didn't really have any of that kind of thing in it
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing
The Doomsday arc spanned a whole lot of comics...
Death of Superman series
Funeral for a Friend series
Rebirth series.
That's a good stack of comic books right there.
Something like 20 or 30. Maybe more. Would have to check my collection for an exact count, but thats my best guess off the top of my head.
Then if we add in the Frank Miller Dark Knight series, that's another 2 full length graphic novels.
This is a Whole lot of material they needed to cover.
Far too much for a standalone film.
I just don't get why DC did it this way.
Wasn't the Batman Vs Superman thing enough for one movie ?
If anything, Doomsday should have been used only as a teaser into the next film. Shown landing in his pod after the credits or something.
On a positive note, I heard Affleck makes a solid Batman.
Which isn't surprising, given his gritty performance in The Town, I figured he could pull it off.
I may have to watch it on satellite when its made available just to see how he does.
But I won't be expecting a well crafted story by any means.
Affleck is a GREAT batman! Gal Gadot is a GREAT WW! Cavill is MUCH better in this movie than in Man of Steel!
This movie is VERY different in tone, and cinematography than the marvel movies. It starts off a little slow, but doesn't disappoint ( or at least didn't disappoint me)
I went in with medium to low expectations and I was NOT disappointed at all!
I can honestly say after reading some of the posts, and seeing how many people are poking holes in this movie after saying
" I haven't seen it" I am a little disappointed. Everyone is entitles to opinions, however INFORMED opinions are the only ones that I personally go by, and even then, I inform myself,, then form my own opinion. The critics are WRONG about this movie!
Anyone who is on the fence and is leaning towards NOT seeing this movie because of what someone else says, my only advice is GO SEE IT!!!! Then again,, by giving that advice I am doing the opposite of what many people here are saying, so, does that make me a contrarian? Sure,, why not.. I can live with that.
Fleet Admiral In charge of Bacon
Fighting 5th Attack Squadron
The Devils Henchman
My character Tsin'xing
I've seen this reaction from a lot of people, and while I understand it(because I liked the movie a LOT), I have to take issue. Saying "don't listen to the critics" is telling people not to listen to the people who (collectively) don't like it. That is closed minded. A person should be willing to listen to all viewpoints, not shut out those they disagree with. The point is, a person should make up their OWN mind, not do what others tell them to do. That includes both the critics *AND* the fans of the movie.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing
That too was what I least liked about the first one but I understand why they did it, they wanted us to have some story of him growing up and getting his powers, also his mom/dad played a big part in who he is and still is. I feel it would have been missing some back ground history without it. It doesn't take long to get through those parts.
Over all I think they are on the right track with Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman and the Justice League. I'm looking forward to the Justice League. Maybe I'm getting burned out on marvel universe civil war coming up. I didnt see the last Cap or avengers at the theater. I havent figured out why just yet but nothing in them said "You got to see this now"
If you don't want to see the movie, that's fine. I get that. What I don't get is having a completely 1 sided view of the situation. For example, you just cited the very low critic reviews, which is true. However, what you completely ignored is that over ONE HUNDRED and SEVENTY THOUSAND people have also rated the movie:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_v_superman_dawn_of_justice/
And as you can see, that score is a lot higher than the 278 critics who rated it. So again, if you don't want to see it, that's fine. But I don't understand your logic. How is it you are willing to accept the view of 278 critics as true, but not accept 170,000 people?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Like I said, if you just don't want to see the movie, that's completely fine. If you don't like the actors, or the story, or the director, that's all fine. But there seems to be a slight contradiction between your last 2 posts. In one, you were saying that you were happy to give it a pass because of the negative reviews you have read. In the other you are saying that other people's opinions don't factor into your decision making process.
I guess you are justifying it in your mind by saying you already made the decision, and the reviews are just reinforcing your opinion, but to be honest that just echo chamber mentality. You are only accepting as valid the view of a small minority of people that happen to agree with your view, but ignoring the 170,000 that liked it. To be clear, I'm not saying you are doing anything "wrong"; some people definitely enjoy their echo chamber.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Precisely
Not so... I'm not 'only' accepting them because they agree with me... I haven't seen the film, so I don't actually have an opinion on the things which they are commenting upon (such as the flow and pacing and structure of the film) therefore they can't agree with me, or more accurately, I can't agree with them... But yes, I am ignoring the 170,000 that liked it in just the same way, that even if 170,000 people said that a particular curry dish was the tastiest meal they'd Ever Eaten, I still wouldn't eat it, because I already know that I am allergic to curry, and eating it makes me violently sick within minutes of consumption. Wouldn't matter if the food critics were saying that it looked like a dog's dinner, or that it stank like a hobo's underwear, I'd still know that eating it wouldn't agree with me, so I just wouldn't eat it...
So what you're seeing as a contradiction, is this: I don't care for the prefessional reviewers opinions any more than I care for the viewing public's opinions. I don't want to see the movie, because of the three main names in it (and frankly, Jesse Eisenberg sounds appalling too) but the professional reviews, are doing nothing to inspire any interest in the film, because at the end of the day, it sounds like it has been terribly made.
To go back to a food analogy, someone could whack a steak with a dirty baseball bat, jump up and down on it, and then take a blow-torch to it... Some folks might be prepared to eat it and think it tastes great, but I wouldn't be in any hurry to eat it myself, even if they said it was the best steak ever...
Oh don't worry. Snyder didn't mess up two great arcs in one swoop.
He messed up FIVE great arcs in one swoop!
-Leonard Nimoy, RIP
Here is the problem with your logic: just because you may not personally like something does *NOT* mean it was poorly made. In your first example, you used something you were actually allergic to. In your second example, you invoked the use of a DIRTY baseball bat, which would obviously contaminate the food it touched.
But neither of those examples take into account the reality that two people could both taste the same excellently prepared dish, but simply have different tastes. One may like the taste, the other may not. That does not mean anything is wrong with the dish, nor does it mean the one who did not like it has some allergy to whatever is in it.
Like I said before, it's completely fine to not want to see the movie. But the reality is that a movie is subjective, and just because you may not like it or be interested in it does not mean it is a "bad" movie. There are plenty of movies I do not personally like or enjoy, but I am not so closed minded that I am going to insist they are actually "bad" movies, when I know full well that there are plenty of people that enjoy them for various reasons.
You, however, don't seem to have that understanding. You seem to think that since you don't personally want to see the movie that it must be garbage. Or going back to your food analogy, that it must have been cooked badly just because you do not personally like the taste. It is unfortunate that you have not yet evolved past that limited perspective.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I saw a 3D screening Saturday night. I give it a 'C' it was a mediocre film at best. The script REALLY needed a few more drafts and they really needed to settle on a main storyline and service that - and not try to do 'the kitchen sink' analogy of:
- Batman vs Superman
- The Doomsday storyline
- The introduction of ONLY the other 3 characters that will most likely be "The Justice League"
ALL in a single very meandering film. It smacked of 'Spiderrman 3' syndrome with the studio saying; "We HAVE to have all thios in a SINGLE film.
Also, sorry, but the way the scriptwriter handled Lex Luthor <--- he came across more like 'The Joker' than Lex Luthor to me (and a small nitpick, but WHY is the last few Superman outings featuring the character is he always depicted with hair until the VERY END of the film?) And BTW - they do not shave a new prisoner bald when they're incarcerated to begin with; so even there I was like really? This Is why/how Lex Luthor becomes bald?
I really thought WB was finally going to give us a great film, as I like the opening (past the obligatory Batman origin sequence which I did like) with Bruce Wayne being in Metropolis when Zod attacked and seeing the massive and wanton destruction being inflicted by the Kryptonians <--- And that was a really great setup as to why batman would see Superman as a real threat to humanity. I also liked that they showed Lex Luthor trying to frame Superman for more wanton acts - but as soon as Lex luthier appeared on screen in person the film started to meander and fall apart in many ways, Also, I thought it would have been better for the story is Lex ALSO tried to make it appear the destruction of the Senate building (and murder of the somewhat sympathetic Senator (who blocked Luthor's import permit for the Kryptonite) WAS ALSO done by Superman and would have 'sealed the deal' as to Batman wanting to take him out (and would have worked well with Batman's first unsuccessful - then second successful attempt to steal the Kryptonite from Luthor.) Plus, that was the scene where to me (with the jar the senator saw, etc.) where I said, that's not Lex Luthor, that's the Joker. Yes, Lex isn't above killing someone in his way, but he's never vindictive or that petty about it - he does it - and in a way you really can't pin it on him <-- THAT would be in character with Lex Luthor.
Also, the CIA gives Luthor FULL access to the Kryptonian ship with ZERO supervision whatsoever? (Especially when the CIA and Military also know Luthor was responsible for the dead terrorists that was pinned on Superman?) And again, I wouldn't mind if they ALSO showed some 'secret government organization' out to frame/discredit Superman, but they really didn't. The meta-human cameos didn't do much for me either; and just felt tacked on because the studios wanted to say - "See fans, we WILL do a 'Justice League' film eventually...". Then there's the whole 'Lex Kidnaps Clark's mother to make sure he confronts Batman (so Batman can kill him with the Kryptonite) - and Kidnaps and throws Lois off a building to 'bring Superman to him'; so he can send Superman to confront Batman.
^^^
This ENTIRE thing was contrived and somewhat unnecessary IMO because the confrontation motivation HAD ALREADY BEEN setup nicely in that Superman did feel Batman was a Vigilante; and had confronted batman himself saying "The next time they put your signal in the sky DON'T answer it - the Bat's dead!' Which prompted a great response in the film from Batman that I enjoyed - "Do you bleed?" (Superman flies off) "You will." <--- There was your setup. Hell, Batman even put his own Bat Signal on the roof to DRAW a response from Superman - so again the whole Luthor scheme to kidnap Clark's mother was unnecessary. (My point being with a few tweaks they COULD have made the script and film a lot tighter - the foundation was there - but either the studio or the screenwriter wanted to just pile it on with Doomsday and their interpretation of the 'Death of Superman' comic book arc (which if they make more films will come).
Personally I also liked what little they did with the Wonder Woman character (which wasn't much - and I'll bet Doomsday was added just to get her into an action sequence in the film and say 'Here's Wonder Woman'); but again, I think they could have salvaged something where she breaks up the Superman/Batman fight directly; and then they ALL realize Lex was framing Superman and go together to bring him in (Hell, have them fight Lex in his Supersuit Armor - which he's been shown using many times in the comics.) I'm also not against a Superman vs Doomsday film story or a 'Death of Superman' film story - but IMO cramming it all into this film was a bit much and didn't do the final result any favors.
Lastly, I laughed when it was Batman basically saying to Diana: "Hey, we need to form a 'Justice League'..", because anyone who KNOWS this overall comics history of the League; batman would be one of the LAST people to instigate that, and further, once it was formed; would be a part time supporter at best.
Again, I didn't hate the film. I just was disappointed that it was as mediocre as it was when a good foundation was in there.
It's just interesting to me how much I enjoy WB/DCs handling of their current Live Action shows on television, while their big budget film attempts of late turn out mediocre at best. YMMV.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
For the simple reason that the consistent reviews, have been that Zack Snyder has made a pig's ear of directing the movie... (ie the bad preparation example) That in itself is enough to make me not want to watch it. As much as I enjoy Watchmen, I would have to admit that there are elements of that 'plotlessness' in it, which were one of my issues with Man of Steel, and so hearing that it is another issue in BvS, certainly doesn't inspire me to want to watch it.
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...
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...
I don't stop others eating curry, I don't go around blowing up curry houses, or pissing and shitting in their doorways, or advise people not to eat curry, and, I actually find it quite interesting that there is a curry so strong, someone has to sign a disclaimer before eating. But that doesn't mean I'll ever sit down to eat another one. Ever. Even if I was starving hungry. Because I'd throw it up before I got any nutritional value from it, and possibly lose anything I'd previously eaten, so why waste my time and money just so I can throw up? I can do that any time I want, for free, just by jamming my finger down my throat..
Same as with this film. I have very good reasons why I don't want to watch it. Additionally to those reasons, the reviews, do not encourage me to watch it either, but make it sound like a badly-directed film, which I can pretty much guarantee I would find annoying, so even if it was on TV some Christmas, I'm sure I could find something -- anything -- better to do than watch it... I've recently gotten into dominos... I'd rather play dominos with myself, than ever watch BvS (or Deadpool, or Episode VII, or Suicide Squad, or Aquaman or Justice League) because unlike Tivo, once it's in there, I can't just delete it, and frankly, I'd rather not 'give it storage space'...
So, rather than thinking that you understand my perspectives (your errors are understandable seeing that you are not privvy to all the facts which I am) and think you are finding flaws with my logic, and that you have the right to question them, or that I have the desire to explain them, kindly have the courtessy to accept that this is my view, and it is not going to change, nor are they subject to further dissection...