Jason Momoa is coming to Wrexham Comic Con in two weeks. I'm gonna have to get him to sign something.
You know what? The things you say make a lot of sense and would have greatly enhanced the movie; however, they do not properly translate into the film. There are just bits and pieces around, but the narrative is so all over the place that is just falls painfully short in setting these character traits.I went to see this for the third time. And it's still my favourite superhero movie ever. Really appreciative that Snyder gave us those gratuitous shots of Bruce and Clark topless - they looked like they stepped out of comic books, insane. I raised a gospel hand each time it happened.
And also really appreciative of a movie that deals with Batman's PTSD and mental health issues so baldly, and acknowledges that he has those and treats them with some level of seriousness (it's fairly obvious that the word 'Martha' was something of a trigger word for him, and while I get that some people find his 'turn-around' to be flimsy, I think given the portrayal of him as a battle-weary, traumatized, highly paranoid alcoholic and whatever else who literally has night terrors, it works better and better on each watch).
Also, I actually really enjoy that the film showed a Clark Kent who's as committed to justice and fighting for it as a journalist as much as he does as Superman. In some ways, he could be way more effective as a journalist if Perry would give him a chance, and it was just a nice touch to see that part of his identity played up. Other versions of Superman haven't done so, which is a shame.
It would actually be a great mini series.
But then you need to adapt it so it makes sense in the film medium. It's ok to demand for suspension of disbelief, it's a superhero movie after all, but the glaring narrative and character motivation problems present are hardly solved by: oh, it's just more like a comic book than the rest.Fundamentally the way we read comics is always with much more suspension of disbelief than in movies. The things people would find wrong with the film wouldn't be so glaring in a comic form. It's a very comic-y plot - it just didn't translate well.
I think like I've said before, I watched this movie as though I was reading a graphic novel. So what people see as being 'all over the place' just felt like a comic book where I'd follow different threads of different characters by turning the page i.e. 'meanwhile in Gotham....', 'meanwhile in Metropolis....', 'meanwhile in Nairobi....', 'meanwhile in Wonder Woman's secret hideout....' - so it didn't feel jarring or all over and I actually really liked the exercise of following those threads and seeing most (if not all) of them come together.You know what? The things you say make a lot of sense and would have greatly enhanced the movie; however, they do not properly translate into the film. There are just bits and pieces around, but the narrative is so all over the place that is just falls painfully short in setting these character traits.
That's why "Martha" comes out of nowhere and feels lazy and ridiculous, because setting Batman as someone with mental health problems and traumas was just too much of a task when they were trying to do so many other things.
Same with Clark, you seem him interested in his journalist job, but it's all very ineffective.
Sadly the movie was not this effective on me. I did not get that comic book feeling, but instead a disjointly edited film that felt messy.I think like I've said before, I watched this movie as though I was reading a graphic novel. So what people see as being 'all over the place' just felt like a comic book where I'd follow different threads of different characters by turning the page i.e. 'meanwhile in Gotham....', 'meanwhile in Metropolis....', 'meanwhile in Nairobi....', 'meanwhile in Wonder Woman's secret hideout....' - so it didn't feel jarring or all over and I actually really liked the exercise of following those threads and seeing most (if not all) of them come together.
I'd also argue about Martha coming out of nowhere because there's a reason they spent so much time on that opening scene of Batman's trauma and placed emphasis on Martha Wayne in a way they never have before in any Batman story on film. Like ever. It's always about Thomas or just his parents in general. This time, visually and deliberately, they focused on her, her pearls, her face when she fell, the first word we hear in that scene is Bruce's father whispering 'Martha' and we see her die. And Bruce visits her grave a couple of times in the movie, and has a crazy nightmare about her grave specifically with weird black blood dripping out of it. The breadcrumbs are there throughout that his overall trauma of losing his parents is tethered to her in particular, so it's not absurd that he loses his shit when Clark mentions the name and it takes Lois saying it's his mother for him to stop having a full on episode or panic attack. I didn't need him to have some extensive monologue to explain it. This film is a bit like playing Hansel and Gretel in a labyrinthine forest as the viewer and following the threads or breadcrumb trails, and it depends whether a viewer is interested in doing that or not, at least to me. And it's totally understandable if not because it's a long ass film and not the easiest film to digest.
Similarly with Clark, I don't need the journalist angle to become his entire story because it's only part but it says the same things about him as his struggle with Superman does. He had a couple of strong scenes with Perry where he got to articulate his thirst for justice, we saw him doing research about Batman and getting those photos of Bruce's particular brand of bat-justice and being justifiably horrified, we heard him questioning Bruce about the vigilante. To me that's enough to give shade to the character and display his frustration and desire for justice but some of the limitations of a journalism that is analogous to our own real world journalism where sensationalism is the order of the day - and newspapers would rather focus on the 'sexy' story rather than some vigilante in a crime-ridden Gotham who's been terrorizing the populace there for years.
I feel I'm just the opposite. I didn't want it explained, to me that would've been way on the nose and I'd probably end up complaining afterwards about why they felt I needed that explained to me when it was right there onscreen. Although I'm fully aware that this opinion is in the minority and most viewers would've probably appreciated a debrief scene where he talks about his trauma etc. Different strokes.The Martha moment just wasn't effective. It needed a scenes-worth of addressing the fact he's just been triggered/his actions. Instead it's like nothing happened and suddenly they're besties. Most offensive thing is how incredibly stupid and bullish the two main characters are. World's at stake and they both need to do some explaining, which would actually diffuse the entire conflict? NO LET'S JUST MASH EACH OTHER TO PULP
Bit OTT. I appreciated @shadedeflector posting the article. Also if the film cost more then obviously the studio want to make more money from it. 'Because BvS cost more' doesn't explain why the film is below projections profit wise.Because BvS cost more. Can you take your little vendetta elsewhere? It's tiresome.
It's more about a long line of passive aggressive and patently untrue posts claiming the film "bombed", it dropped 80% in its second weekend, Warner is cancelling their DC film slate etc. But hey if you enjoy the Marvel Fox News, be my guest.
According to Forbes, BvS will eventually make Warner Bros around 125m profit.Warner Bros. Projected To Earn Less From "Batman v Superman" Than It Did From "Man of Steel"