“Well, what about ['Star Wars: The Force Awakens']? In ‘Star Wars’ they destroy five planets with billions of people on them. That’s gotta be one of the highest death toll movies in history, the new ‘Star Wars’ movie, if you just do the math.” Zynder in defense of MOS and upcoming BVS in an interview with wall street journal. He's got a point there.

SIRcumalot:

the Dark Knight trilogy had the benefit of nolan who could do no wrong at the time and was a media darling synder doesn't have that benefit.
concerning the critics they can shade reviews to some degree if their access to exclusive viewing is contingent upon giving a favourable review e. g starwars
what is the ceiling for comic book movies ?
this is something all this critics need to take into consideration.
I like man of steel very much,a non profitable BvS will probably not make justice league happen which I really want to see.

I believe Justice League will still happen. They might be some reshuffling or teaming of directors, that's what I suspect. If you remember well, WB already saw these unfavourable reviews some weeks ago and still decided to stick to their guns. I believe BvS will still be profitable, many people are still eager to see it, at least, the ticket sales are booming. BvS has a well-oiled global marketing, even better than CW.

Yeah, a new picture of the amazons have arrived. #Wonderwoman

What do you guys think?

TonySpike:
Yeah, a new picture of the amazons have arrived. #Wonderwoman

What do you guys think?

DCEU taking over. can't wait for 2017

charlesm91:
“Well, what about ['Star Wars: The Force Awakens']? In ‘Star Wars’ they destroy five planets with billions of people on them. That’s gotta be one of the highest death toll movies in history, the new ‘Star Wars’ movie, if you just do the math.” Zynder in defense of MOS and upcoming BVS in an interview with wall street journal. He's got a point there.

That was a very dumb statement, I refuse to believe Snyder actually said that. If he did, then I change my mind, DC should sack him

In Star Wars Star-killer base killed billions and destroyed planets. In Man of Steel, Superman killed a lot of people. There is a difference between the evil bad guy of a movie killing civilians and the superhero of the movie killing civilians. The fact that he's defending heroes killing people does that mean they kill more people in BvS? If I watch BvS and any of the heroes kill people then I'm done defending this fool of a director

moneyallowed:


That was a very dumb statement, I refuse to believe Snyder actually said that. If he did, then I change my mind, DC should sack him

In Star Wars Star-killer base killed billions and destroyed planets. In Man of Steel, Superman killed a lot of people. There is a difference between the evil bad guy of a movie killing civilians and the superhero of the movie killing civilians. The fact that he's defending heroes killing people does that mean they kill more people in BvS? If I watch BvS and any of the heroes kill people then I'm done defending this fool of a director

You obviously do not get the all issue here. The bone of contention here is that 'thr was too much destruction' in MOS, superman dint kill pple, pple died as a result of his fight with Zod, and wat do u expect wen two titans fight? pple died in Avengers: AOU too doesnt means Avengers killed em. There will be collateral damage, it was just too much in MOS and understandably so since Zod was bent on destroying earth and superman had to defend and these are two kryptonians going headtohead here, it wouldnt have been fought in a small space. And i biliv this is reason for Batman's feud with Superman, he brought his Zod battle to Gotham and caused destruction.
And if u watched Civil War trailer, Avengers were under scrutiny cos of the trail of destruction that followed thr battles. So going by wat u wrote, Avengers killed these pple??
smh

Unfortunately stumbled upon main spoiler in the movie and I'm not gonna ruin anyone's but if you didn't see it coming...

Posman:


You obviously do not get the all issue here. The bone of contention here is that 'thr was too much destruction' in MOS, superman dint kill pple, pple died as a result of his fight with Zod, and wat do u expect wen two titans fight? pple died in Avengers: AOU too doesnt means Avengers killed em. There will be collateral damage, it was just too much in MOS and understandably so since Zod was bent on destroying earth and superman had to defend and these are two kryptonians going headtohead here, it wouldnt have been fought in a small space. And i biliv this is reason for Batman's feud with Superman, he brought his Zod battle to Gotham and caused destruction.
And if u watched Civil War trailer, Avengers were under scrutiny cos of the trail of destruction that followed thr battles. So going by wat u wrote, Avengers killed these pple??
smh

I get the collateral damage issue, really. My problem is that using Star wars as an excuse is pretty dumb. If he had mentioned Avengers that would have even made more sense. The difference also between Avenger and MoS was they were seen trying to get people to safety and avoid casualties. In MoS there was none of that, Supes even used a building full of people as weapon against Zod

That's other guys problem not mine, mine is the kill policy. Some heroes have a moral code and some don't. Let me watch the movie first before I conclude

“The interesting thing is that we get the critics who have their personal opinions. And the thing about personal opinions is that they always come from a place. And there’s a preconceived idea which you have to get past a critic before you start writing your article or your review, and that affects everything.- Henry Cavill in reply to critics.
"I'm a comic book guy and I made the movie as much as I can on that aesthetic." Zack Zynder.
These are excerpts from interview with Yahoo.

moneyallowed:


Oscar for Best Picture? Lol that's the kind of hype that kills movies. I'll lower my expectations and go and watch BvS with an open mind.
These critics are professionals and get paid for this, it's their source of livelihood and they can't afford to be seen as biased. These are the same critics that gave The Dark Knight trilogy wonderful reviews. So there's obviously something wrong with the film, maybe it's not as bad as they're saying but I blame that on the hype, we were promised something spectacular and they probably didn't deliver

talking about critics and integrity, ever seen the m0vie Birdman? It portrays critic bias in hollywood. In a scene, it showed a critic already writing her review before even seeing the previous batman actor's character in the film performing on broadway. I d0n't think its the script, we've heard Jesse Eisenberg prays it time without number for its philosophic approach. I think they're tearing it down because the film portrayed a bad image of U. S <what snyder films always do a la watchmen and m0st films that tend to do, olympus has fallen, l0nd0n has fallen> or they were paid to tear it down. I remember menti0ning that here b4 the m0vie was released. To me, i would like every0ne to go read, Jesse Eisenberg's m0ck review of a n0n existent m0vie aiming to m0ck critics. That write up totally explains whats happening n0w with BvS. Well i'll like every0ne to go see the m0vie and make his own opinion.

moneyallowed:


I get the collateral damage issue, really. My problem is that using Star wars as an excuse is pretty dumb. If he had mentioned Avengers that would have even made more sense. The difference also between Avenger and MoS was they were seen trying to get people to safety and avoid casualties. In MoS there was none of that, Supes even used a building full of people as weapon against Zod

That's other guys problem not mine, mine is the kill policy. Some heroes have a moral code and some don't. Let me watch the movie first before I conclude

now here's where you went off key. You said the avengers, and M0s was a solo superman m0vie that had him fighting a villain much powerful than him bent on killing him, his mum, and the people of earth. During the course of the fight, there was no flash, gl, ww, cyborg, aquaman to save the civillians. And if you watched closely, supes never took the fight to the offices. How did he kill them? People fail to grab the c0ntext of M0s. What if a superman were to c0me or be on earth? Do you really think there'd be no c0nsequences? D0n't let the marvel f0rmula take your reas0ning. When you are in a fight with a mad being that means ur life and those you care about and the greater g0od, would you be thinking at that m0ment the safety of those viewing the fight, cats on a tree or trying to c0ntend the fight and win it? The c0ncept of these films are of the imaginati0n, what if these were to happen n0w? Just like TDK was about what if batman was just a man trying to be m0re than what he was. You d0n't just show the man as powerful and perfect. It takes fr0m the narative. Its n0t like superman the m0vie where every0ne was okay with an alien being on earth or a human being dying for it outrightly. In M0s, we startd with lois pitying these creature who's trying to do g0od, live n0rmal and fit in but couldn't. She saw a humanity in him. N0w thats a c0ncept. It could happen but what can't is in the other film where lois outrightly pines for an alien. In avengers we had every0ne just been c0ol at the end with an alien invasi0n without asking questi0ns, the USA army nowhere to be found during the battle of new york which i d0n't blame cos it wasn't dealing with the c0ncept of realism.

Minemrys:

talking about critics and integrity, ever seen the m0vie Birdman? It portrays critic bias in hollywood. In a scene, it showed a critic already writing her review before even seeing the previous batman actor's character in the film performing on broadway. I d0n't think its the script, we've heard Jesse Eisenberg prays it time without number for its philosophic approach. I think they're tearing it down because the film portrayed a bad image of U. S <what snyder films always do a la watchmen and m0st films that tend to do, olympus has fallen, l0nd0n has fallen> or they were paid to tear it down. I remember menti0ning that here b4 the m0vie was released. To me, i would like every0ne to go read, Jesse Eisenberg's m0ck review of a n0n existent m0vie aiming to m0ck critics. That write up totally explains whats happening n0w with BvS. Well i'll like every0ne to go see the m0vie and make his own opinion.

Remember when I told you that some critics already have negative drafts of reviews-ready to publish it as soon as he film is released? Don't you think that's what's happening now?

Raalsalghul:
Remember when I told you that some critics already have negative drafts of reviews-ready to publish it as soon as he film is released? Don't you think that's what's happening now?

i guess so. But like Amy Adams said, "this film isn't shot for the critics but the fans".

Minemrys:

talking about critics and integrity, ever seen the m0vie Birdman? It portrays critic bias in hollywood. In a scene, it showed a critic already writing her review before even seeing the previous batman actor's character in the film performing on broadway. I d0n't think its the script, we've heard Jesse Eisenberg prays it time without number for its philosophic approach. I think they're tearing it down because the film portrayed a bad image of U. S <what snyder films always do a la watchmen and m0st films that tend to do, olympus has fallen, l0nd0n has fallen> or they were paid to tear it down. I remember menti0ning that here b4 the m0vie was released. To me, i would like every0ne to go read, Jesse Eisenberg's m0ck review of a n0n existent m0vie aiming to m0ck critics. That write up totally explains whats happening n0w with BvS. Well i'll like every0ne to go see the m0vie and make his own opinion.

Bingo, nail on the head! There is critic bias in the movie industry but if you read what I wrote I said they can't afford to be seen as biased. In the case of Birdman, a movie that fully deserved it's Oscar btw, that critic was so well respected that she could tear down or resurrect his career with a word. She was like a god. In the real world that's why you have things like metacritic and rotten tomatoes, to aggregate the scores of several critics, so no single critic can have the final say on a movie. The big studios try to influence critics and swing them to their side cos they know bad reviews can sink a film

The essence of a review really is to give a general idea of a film and if it's worth your time to watch, cos life is too short to waste on bad movies. The purpose is not to serve as the final word on the movie, your opinion should be the final word. If you're really concerned about reviews then have one or two reviewers you trust and follow them. I usually listen to Struckmann and Roger ebert's site, these I can relate to
That's the thing though, when a movie we love gets good reviews then critics matter all of a sudden and we use the RT score as proof that the movie is awesome, but if the movie is bashed then the critics were biased or have an agenda.

Gods of Egypt director recently had a lot of things to say about critics, after his movie was bashed. The funny thing though is while he was right about the undue influence critics have on our opinions, he was wrong in the end cos Gods of Egypt was a very bad film. Now he's claiming the critics are being too soft with BvS cos of bias, that the RT score should be lower and RT is owned by Warner Bros so he may have a point. In fact they are claiming fake accounts and audience reviews are keeping the audience score unreasonably high

Anyway I'll watch BvS this weekemd and let you know what I think

Be it as it may, there was clearly overwhelming bias against BvS. When should dark footages and lack of humour or even comparing the movie against another franchise become a basis to judge a movie? There is clearly a pattern in their mediocre review. Every movie deserves to be judged solely on its merit not bias. The sad part of this is that many websites and blogs started following the trend of earlier reviews to make their judgements. Even the guys from collider.com read the reviews before going for screening on Wednesday. After screening, they kept on saying the same. When you read a review before going to watch, it makes you look out for more loopholes. That's how it works. That said, there was a conspiracy against BvS from the outset and the hate went higher with Snyder appointed as the director. Snyder isn't a favourite director in Hollywood, they simply dislike him.

Raalsalghul:
Remember when I told you that some critics already have negative drafts of reviews-ready to publish it as soon as he film is released? Don't you think that's what's happening now?

You predicted correctly. Those reviewers only needed to watch the movie to rubberstamp their reviews!

many negative reviews about jesse eisenberg lex luthor portrayal.

In this film, Jesse Eisenberg plays a whiny Harvard dropout pretending to be Lex Luthor.

Watching Alexander (I'm hesitant to call him Lex) forcibly shove a Jolly Rancher into another man's mouth and then gleefully lick his fingers afterwards tells you all you need to know about the character: chiefly that he's a weirdo who has no place in this movie. BVS tries to be so ultra dark and serious, and then this clown is the villain? Traditional Lex Luthor would have fit in here so nicely. It's completely baffling to me why Snyder and Terrio and co. went with a Luthor Jr. with surfer-dude-bro hair who sinks sick shots on the basketball court. You put Bryan Cranston or Joaquin Phoenix in the role of traditional Lex Luthor and you have a terrifying and fitting villain. You put Jesse Eisenberg in the role and make him Lexy Jr with Daddy Issues and you get a joke of a villain. Articles from earlier today also reveal Eisenberg originally tested for the Riddler, who was going to be in the movie. (The producer, Charles Roven, didn't outright name the character but it seems obvious that's who Eisenberg was originally looked at for). Then they like Eisenberg so they make him the villain. Go figure.

Oh also, the people who are saying this is a pile of garbage are completely wrong and should not be taken seriously. The film does have some major editing issues but beyond that, the film is very solid... the only issue aside from editing that gets in the way is Lex with him being out of place and very annoying. I also have a hard time calling him Lex Luther since he was not Lex Luther AT ALL.

Minemrys:

i guess so. But like Amy Adams said, "this film isn't shot for the critics but the fans".

Yes, I read something like that on Screenrant. The perfect reply!

moneyallowed:


Bingo, nail on the head! There is critic bias in the movie industry but if you read what I wrote I said they can't afford to be seen as biased. In the case of Birdman, a movie that fully deserved it's Oscar btw, that critic was so well respected that she could tear down or resurrect his career with a word. She was like a god. In the real world that's why you have things like metacritic and rotten tomatoes, to aggregate the scores of several critics, so no single critic can have the final say on a movie. The big studios try to influence critics and swing them to their side cos they know bad reviews can sink a film

The essence of a review really is to give a general idea of a film and if it's worth your time to watch, cos life is too short to waste on bad movies. The purpose is not to serve as the final word on the movie, your opinion should be the final word. If you're really concerned about reviews then have one or two reviewers you trust and follow them. I usually listen to Struckmann and Roger ebert's site, these I can relate to
That's the thing though, when a movie we love gets good reviews then critics matter all of a sudden and we use the RT score as proof that the movie is awesome, but if the movie is bashed then the critics were biased or have an agenda.

Gods of Egypt director recently had a lot of things to say about critics, after his movie was bashed. The funny thing though is while he was right about the undue influence critics have on our opinions, he was wrong in the end cos Gods of Egypt was a very bad film. Now he's claiming the critics are being too soft with BvS cos of bias, that the RT score should be lower and RT is owned by Warner Bros so he may have a point. In fact they are claiming fake accounts and audience reviews are keeping the audience score unreasonably high

Anyway I'll watch BvS this weekemd and let you know what I think

My beef with the critics regarding this movie is not the negative reviews, but that they want this film to be light-hearted and humour-filled like the MCU films. I'm glad that it is dark as the night. We need variety!

kendrick9:
Oh also, the people who are saying this is a pile of garbage are completely wrong and should not be taken seriously. The film does have some major editing issues but beyond that, the film is very solid... the only issue aside from editing that gets in the way is Lex with him being out of place and very annoying. I also have a hard time calling him Lex Luther since he was not Lex Luther AT ALL.

have you seen the movie? How did lex loose his hair?

Minemrys:

have you seen the movie? How did lex loose his hair?

I heard he shaved his hair in the end after his arrest for his crimes.

Raalsalghul:
My beef with the critics regarding this movie is not the negative reviews, but that they want this film to be light-hearted and humour-filled like the MCU films. I'm glad that it is dark as the night. We need variety!

I agree 100%. We need more variety. A light, fun filled BvS movie would be weird af. This is why I'm looking forward to Suicide Squad, feels like it'll be different from anything we've seen before

TonySpike:

I heard he shaved his hair in the end after his arrest for his crimes.

so that means he isn't bald?

Minemrys:

so that means he isn't bald?

Let kendrick9 confirm. I want to know his ratings too...

http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/24/11297926/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-review[url]
quite a scathing attack

kendrick9:
http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/24/11297926/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-review[url]
quite a scathing attack

bias all over. wen critic unanimously admitted Affleck as best Batman till date. he found to be worst part of the movie? hahaha. i stopped reading the review from that moment

Posman:


bias all over. wen critic unanimously admitted Affleck as best Batman till date. he found to be worst part of the movie? hahaha. i stopped reading the review from that moment

Many of those reviews are self-contradicting and obtuse. I read one self-glorifying review from whatculture.com titled "Batman V Superman: I told you it was going to be rubbish". The guy was just grumbling throughout the article proving that his earlier bile of hatred against the movie is now justified. In the comments section, this reviewer, Alex Leadbeater, was properly tutored by movie fans. I later understood that the guy had been writing distasteful articles against BvS for a long time. Apparently, many of these guys are closet Marvel fans...

I just read that BvS made a whooping $27.7 million at yesterday night (Thursday) opening. That's quite impressive!
My local cinema has four viewing rooms for BvS and they rated it 61% here.