I'm quite happy with this. If it were a solo Superman film, I'd say totally unnecessary. If it were a solo Batman film, I'd say potentially a great idea. For both of them, fair game.
I dunno, for all it's faults I still like Snyder's Watchmen. I'm predicting the Nolan Trilogy will be a more competent and sophisticated endeavour from a technical perspective with much more effort put into minimizing CG and doing things practically, despite hitting audiences over the head with overwritten exposition and not trusting audiences to look for the subtleties and depth of the Burton films. But I do feel that this could perhaps be a more enjoyable experience overall than Nolan's... We'll know very shortly.
« Reply #33 on: Feb 25th, 2016, 12:45am »
Can't argue with that. I boycott censorship and wait until I can see the version intended by the director. Many films are butchered with UK exclusive censorship in our cinemas for lower age ratings. Some come to Blu-Ray uncensored, but some retain the unique censorship even then and require importing.
This fits into my boycott rules. But it is also Batman...
The fight scene at the start looked like something out of the Arkham games, looked pretty decent to be honest. We'll see, not long now.
Ha, while technically a trailer for a different region, it is still a new official trailer with a lot of little bits of footage we have not previously seen. So I'm claiming victory on not believing the "final" trailer was the final one!
Calling it now: act 1: we all hate Superman because Batman. act 2: they iron out differences and audience warms to Superman. act 3: Superman "dies" in Doomsday fight, bringing all the superpeoples together to form the JL.
JL film will have Superman returning and a re-birth of hope.
« Reply #39 on: Mar 24th, 2016, 03:34am »
Last post before I see the film, as usual I'm going to keep things spoiler free until we agree otherwise.
My tradition (since Batman Begins) is to travel to London on opening day to see Batman films at the real IMax (one of three in the country, not the fake LieMax screens at every cinema). But the company who currently runs the trains in my region is the most incompetent bunch of retards ever, and have decided to not run any trains for the next few weeks, so I can't fucking get there. I have my midnight ticket for a local screening tonight. The upside of that is I get to see the film in native 2D rather than a bad 3D conversion. I have this issue with 3D. If the film is natively 3D, so it was shot with two cameras, I can watch that fine and would preferably do so. If a film is entirely CG, like Toy Story, again I am fine and would preferably do so in 3D. If a film is shot in 2D with real live actors, then converted to 3D with computers, my brain just knows it is wrong (perhaps picking up on every perspective irregularity) and gets very upset. Star Wars was the most recent example of that happening.
I intended to rewatch POS in anticipation, but at every opportunity I just do something else instead. I still have a chance, I probably won't. Maybe I'll do it when the full length Blu-Ray is out and do both films in a weekend.
I have heard nothing positive about this film. But the criticisms vary wildly, I'm still going in open to enjoying it. Perhaps I'm deluding myself, because I actually think I will... The only thing reviews seem to have agreed on is if you are in the tiny minority who liked POS, you'll like this. If you hated POS, you'll hate this. I hated POS.
The criticisms that have varied wildly seem to fall into two categories:
It is a CG wankfest, and we all know how much I detest those. All the action is poor CG and takes you out of the moment because it is so obviously not happening. Doomsday in particular is terrible, as is the 'tennis ball' acting because there was nothing there. This will be a big hurdle for me. FOOTNOTE BELOW.
There is hardly any action. It is all talking. Don't expect The Avengers, expect Watchmen. Children will hate this and because of that the franchise is already dead. Honestly, that sounds pretty good to me. Ha! Give me something with more substance than the Nolan films and we're off to a good start. But dumb it down like Nolan did and we're not.
My initial non-spoiler opinions will follow over the weekend. Right now I'm going to watch a film that isn't POS.
FOOTNOTE - cut to make better formatting:
A good comparison (spoiler free as to details) is that scene in Breaking Bad when a character has his face half blown off. It was half practical, half CG. In the self congratulatory making of feature, they say that the effect is so good you are shocked and absorbed by the story, they wanted to avoid taking you out of the moment by looking at it and just saying 'that's a bad effect'. Problem is, that is exactly what happened when I first saw it. It took me right out of the story and I spent the whole time thinking how bad the CG looked. Practical effects, no matter how bad, are there, you can have that suspension of disbelief. Similarly, I don't care if I know something is a set, Hook and Temple Of Doom are two examples of sets that looked fake, but the effort put into them was so wonderful and absorbing. CG almost universally takes me out of the moment because it is not there, and it is usually lazy film making to avoid things that could have been done practically, but would have been harder if they were. I appreciate in the case of Breaking Bad, what they wanted was one of those few times where they couldn't have achieved what they wanted with the actor practically. They could have done the shot with a high quality mannequin and creative film making, but for what they wanted to do, it does seem CG was the only route, and I appreciate the effort to include a practical base at least. But nonetheless, I was still taken out of the moment.
Watchmen was one of those rare CG wankfests I managed to overcome the hurdles and still enjoy. It can happen if other aspects are good enough. I'm just sick of CG being used to plug the holes of lazy filmmaking. If it can be done practically, do it practically. I love how Don Mancini assures Chucky will always be practical, the Chucky effects are marvellous and deserve high praise.
Another great example of 'real' film making is Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof, and for this reason perhaps my favourite film of his. That extended car chase with Zoe Bell on the car was mind blowing. The fact that she had played the character all the way through so it was clearly her and not a stunt double, and the fact it was all done for real, I was hooked on that scene. Although I obviously knew the film was completed as intended, I was leaning forward convinced she was going to fall off and die. That level of intensity had me utterly hooked and I couldn't look away. I came away from that film amazed at what I had seen. Now that is how you make a film. Conversely, when things like that are done with CG, I switch off and get bored. I feel if you want to make your film CG, do it, and don't use real life actors. I'm fine with all CG films, many are great, I don't like the hybrids.