Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) (2 Viewers)

[Bob Cashill]

That's regulation Dark Knight length.

 

[TravisR]

That's regulation Dark Knight length.

But Zack Snyder isn't Christopher Nolan.

 

[Bob Cashill]

It's between Watchmen and Man of Steel in the Snyderverse.

 

[Steve_Pannell]

Ugh. I hate to keep being negative but two and a half hours?

I know, right?

This has got to be the WORST movie I have never seen.

 

[TravisR]

I know, right?

This has got to be the WORST movie I have never seen.

I know I'm judging something sight unseen but in the last ten years there have been way too many movies that might have actually been good if they weren't a hour too long. Every Spielberg wannabe now thinks his 'opus' needs to be 2 and a half hours to justify the $14 ticket price and the $150 or $200 million budget. Some guys can pull that running time off (James Cameron, Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson) but way more often than not, movies that long end up being bloated and slow.

 

[Brandon Conway]

There's a lot of ground to cover here. I would be shocked if it was any shorter.

Of course, who cares if it's good? And if it's outright bad (which I highly doubt), who cares if it's more than 5 minutes?

BTW, this is only 8 minutes longer than The Avengers, aka the holy relic of superhero films.

In the one hand you have people saying that DC is rushing things and should have 5 more movies or something before team ups. On the other hand, spending 8 minutes more on just one movie than the first MCU teamup brings complaints.

They can't win with some people.

 

[TravisR]

There's a lot of ground to cover here. I would be shocked if it was any shorter.

Of course, who cares if it's good? And if it's outright bad (which I highly doubt), who cares if it's more than 5 minutes?

BTW, this is only 8 minutes longer than The Avengers, aka the holy relic of superhero films.

Yeah, if it's a good movie and works at 2 and a half hours, great but like I said, that kind of run time more often leads to bloat than quality in my viewing experience.

And for what it's worth, I thought The Avengers was a little too long but not to any serious detriment.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

It takes at least half an hour to cover Aquaman's total irrelevance in depth.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Aquaman is gonna kick ass and prove the haters wrong.... in Justice League next year. In BVS I expect he'll be limited to a cameo to whet (wet?) the appetite.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Also, I have a theory as to how/when the Aquaman and The Flash cameos will be handled in BVS (as well as other rumored cameos)

Spoiler

The toys for "Knightmare Batman" have been renamed to "Future Showdown". So, we can speculate that this apocalyptic nightmare is also part vision. Could whoever is having the vision (presumably Batman) also see Aquaman, and The Flash in some alternative, world-scarred-by-Darkseid way? This would make the most sense seeing as how Snyder said we'd see "whispers" of these characters, and Flash actor Ezra Miller described his costume in this film as "post-apocalyptic". This would also tie-in to the "Unite the Seven" Aquaman image Snyder released, since not having them unite would lead to destruction via Darkseid, hence the directive.

This would be a good way to leave hints of these characters via cameos that wouldn't feel "overstuffed", IMO.

As for Cyborg, I can see him turning up in the vision as well, but I also suspect we'll see him pre-Cyborg as Victor Stone, as we know that there was a football game shot for part of the film, presumably including this cameo.

Also - I really, really hope the rumors of flashbacks with the Joker killing Jason Todd and shooting Barbara Gordon are true.

 

[George_W_K]

I like long runtimes for blockbusters. I really can't think of a movie where I've thought making it shorter would improve it. Just saying nothing comes to mind.

 

[Tino]

More bang for the buck i say. [emoji106]

 

[TravisR]

I like long runtimes for blockbusters. I really can't think of a movie where I've thought making it shorter would improve it. Just saying nothing comes to mind.

The Lone Ranger is the best example to me. If it was an hour shorter, it could have had a quick origin story and built to an outstanding climax and been a hit. Instead it went on and on and on until its outstanding climax and almost everyone hated it. Some crap like Transformers would still suck at 90 minutes but at least it wouldn't take as long to not be entertained.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

There's a lot of ground to cover here. I would be shocked if it was any shorter.

Of course, who cares if it's good? And if it's outright bad (which I highly doubt), who cares if it's more than 5 minutes?

As Roger Ebert was fond of saying, “No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.”

 

[David Deeb]

Movie goers don't want their bad movies long until they are released on Blu-ray and DVD. Then they want a director's cut with seamless branching, preferably an hour longer so all the badness can be enjoyed at home.

 

[George_W_K]

The Lone Ranger is the best example to me. If it was an hour shorter, it could have had a quick origin story and built to an outstanding climax and been a hit. Instead it went on and on and on until its outstanding climax and almost everyone hated it. Some crap like Transformers would still suck at 90 minutes but at least it wouldn't take as long to not be entertained.

I didn't see Lone Ranger because the trailers made it look like it wasn't my cup of tea. Then the subsequent reviews cemented my decision to not watch it.

I think I was one of the suckers with Transformers. When I originally saw it, my nostalgia kicked in and I loved it. Plus Megan Fox was(is) nice eye candy. I didn't mind the runtime then. But now, I see the many flaws and not sure a shorter runtime could fix that mess, but it would probably improve it.

 

[Oliver Ravencrest]

I don't really care about the run time of BvS, as long as they deliver with the story and the trailers (mostly) have looked really good. I've been disappointed before by movies with good trailers but I always go into a movie hoping to enjoy it.

 

[todd s]

The Lone Ranger is the best example to me. If it was an hour shorter, it could have had a quick origin story and built to an outstanding climax and been a hit. Instead it went on and on and on until its outstanding climax and almost everyone hated it. .

Not to go off topic. But, what upset me the most about The Lone Ranger. Is they made him more of a buffoon and Tonto as the smart one. At least during the climax fight. He was the Lone Ranger I knew.

Back on topic. I am very excited about this movie. Lots of naysayers out there. They might be right. But, I have been waiting since I was a little kid in the late 70's to not only see Super & Bats on the big screen. But, the entire Justice League. I will give it all the benefit of the doubt.

Speaking of the Justice League. It was my first comic as a kid that I started collecting. Have all the issues of the original series.

 

[Tino]

A Deadpool Reaction?

WHAT DEADPOOL'S SUCCESS MEANS FOR COMIC BOOK MOVIES

FEB, 23 2016
REPORT: BATMAN V SUPERMAN TO GET R-RATED HOME ENTERTAINMENT RELEASE


http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/02...man-to-get-r-rated-home-entertainment-release

 

[TravisR]

I admit I'm surprised simply because I can't think of what would need to be R rated in a movie like this. As long as there's no blood, the MPAA deems all violence to be PG-13. It's not like Superman is going to tear out Batman's heart or something graphic like that.