Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) (1 Viewer)

[Oliver Ravencrest]

The end to S:TM works for me because Superman could save everyone but Lois. His grief allows him to travel back in time, it's a visual representation of time travel, he's not actually spinning the Earth backwards. I like to think that while he finally saves Lois, his other self is saving everyone else. Time travel can be a head-scratcher at times.

 

[Greg.K]

It doesn't work for me because once he knows he can travel back in time, there's nothing stopping him from doing it again and again.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

I love Superman I and II. But the endings for both films were lame "artificial excitement." Oh, look, we killed Lois and painted ourselves into a corner. Let's double-talk her back to life. Cheat ending! See also: "I'll kiss you and make you forget the entire second movie." Tell a real story.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I love Superman I and II. But the endings for both films were lame "artificial excitement." Oh, look, we killed Lois and painted ourselves into a corner. Let's double-talk her back to life. Cheat ending! See also: "I'll kiss you and make you forget the entire second movie." Tell a real story.

That's the problem with cannibalizing one movie's ending to save another.

You probably already know this, but Superman I was originally going to end on something of a cliffhanger. Superman would have caught up with both missiles in time, and flung them into space. He would have caught Luther and dropped him off in jail, and then we would have seen those missiles in space crashing into the Phantom Zone, freeing Zod et al. And then the turning back time ending would have been used as the ending to Superman II, where it almost made more sense. Then, it wasn't just a matter of Superman having a power that he conveniently chooses to use only once ever, but more of a matter of him having screwed up so badly, that there was no other way to set things right.

I don't really love the turning back time or the magic kiss, but as far as endings go, I think I'm a little bit more bothered by the magic kiss (cause that's a power Superman definitely doesn't have) but I recognize that the turning back time may be objectively worse.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

Pound for pound, though, you just can't beat tossing a cellophane "S" to briefly inconvenience a villain.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

The "magic kiss" was a manifestation of super hypnosis which was a well established Superman Silver Age power. And it was almost always used on somebody after he/she had discovered that Clark Kent was Superman. Masking the hypnosis via a kiss was unique to the movie.

 

[Oliver Ravencrest]

I love Superman I and II. But the endings for both films were lame "artificial excitement." Oh, look, we killed Lois and painted ourselves into a corner. Let's double-talk her back to life. Cheat ending! See also: "I'll kiss you and make you forget the entire second movie." Tell a real story.

I don't like the kiss because it was a cheap and easy way out. What was the point of Lois knowing if they were just going to make her forget? It was worse in Superman IV when they repeated this for one scene. I always wished they just let her continue knowing and found other ways to deal with it.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

Everything was worse in Superman IV.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Still can't believe Time magazine called Superman 3 the best of the bunch![emoji15]

What??? No - you gotta be making that up!!!

 

[Tino]

Can't find the exact quote by Richard Corliss but here is his rave review where he calls it the most entertaining Superman yet.

http://www.supermaniii.com/siiiweb/S3_ARTICLES/Review_Goodness_At_The_Crossroads_Superman_III.html

 

[Sam Favate]

Superman III plays more like the latest Richard Pryor comedy that happens to feature Superman than a continuation of the character we'd seen in two previous movies.

I have no idea why movies around 1983 opted for comedy over substance (see: Return of the Jedi, Octopussy); maybe film makers were getting high and giggly.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Can't find the exact quote by Richard Corliss but here is his rave review where he calls it the most entertaining Superman yet.

http://www.supermaniii.com/siiiweb/S3_ARTICLES/Review_Goodness_At_The_Crossroads_Superman_III.html

That needs to be in a "critics got it wrong" compilation. "Supes III" was mediocre at best, poor at worst.

And he was wrong about it turning a profit, healthy or otherwise! "Supes III" wasn't a total flop, but it definitely underperformed at the box office...

 

[Bryan^H]

I'm not seeing BvS until the directors cut is released, and hopefully I will have a UHD setup by then to watch 4k video. I think the reaction to this film has been pretty harsh. I dogged it by the trailer just because it basically used one of my favorite comics of all time as the main source material-The Dark Knight Returns-, and my feeling was if Snyder is going to go that far just make a direct port of the graphic novel....that way it can't be bad. It worked with the Watchmen movie.
My suggestion to all the angry fanboys(like in the video below) is this:
Treat the film like an "Else Worlds" book from DC, and it may just be an enjoyable film. After all it is the movies, not comic books. I still haven't found a perfect Batman movie, my idea of perfect would be Nolan's Batman, in Tim Burton's Gotham from the 89 film, and the villains from the 60s TV series. But none of the Batman films individually captured what I love about Batman. No, for that I just read an issue of Detective comics from the early 400's.
People like this need to lighten up;

 

[Chris Will]

it's a visual representation of time travel, he's not actually spinning the Earth backwards.

Yes he is, Donner says so in the making of doc. Plus, if it was just a representation of Supes traveling through time then he would not have had to spin the Earth back in the right direction when he was done.

 

[Bryan^H]

I just got back from a comic book convention. I Probably spent too much, but I have a lot of good reading, starting with non other than Superman, and Batman}

 

[SamT]

Batman v Superman: Jeremy Irons calls DC film 'overstuffed'

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/29/batman-v-superman-jeremy-irons-criticism

 

[Brandon Conway]

I quite like the film yet I think overstuffed and muddled is a fair criticism. It's a film with a lot of moving pieces without the runtime to accomodate it. This is the primary reason most of us want to see the intended 3-hr cut. It needs breathing room. I'm not saying every element that people dislike will go away or anything, but the presentation problems will hopefully be diminished significantly.

 

[Oliver Ravencrest]

Yes he is, Donner says so in the making of doc. Plus, if it was just a representation of Supes traveling through time then he would not have had to spin the Earth back in the right direction when he was done.

He would in order to go forward in time gain. I don't remember Donner saying that, either way I'm okay with it.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Yes he is, Donner says so in the making of doc. Plus, if it was just a representation of Supes traveling through time then he would not have had to spin the Earth back in the right direction when he was done.

Honestly, I don't care whether it's a metaphor or not; having him fail and then rewind time is just a stupid ending.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

my idea of perfect would be Nolan's Batman, in Tim Burton's Gotham from the 89 film, and the villains from the 60s TV series.

Interesting concept!