By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
celador said:
Nuvendil said:

To be fair. lack of fun isn't the same as lack of levity.  Going full dark is hard to maintain and very often doesn't produce the best works with the most longevity.  Some do mind, it's just uncommon.  But many classics of recent and olden times -  Lord of the Rings, Citizen Kane, Hamlet (most of Shakespeare really), Ovid's Metamorphoses, etc. feature a balance of tones rather than just hammering one home.  And those clasics that do focus on the dark tone usually have lulls that give you breathing room.  It may be that the pace of the movie doesn't allow for that approach so levity is what they hope will lighten it up a bit.  Also, movies (and games and plays and books and poetry and painting and etc etc) are both art and business.  They want to please the crowd on some level, even artists do :P

Most of the best "serious" movies do have moments of levity, and that is perfectly fine of course, or even necessary.

My main problem with this is that the writers and director must have felt that they struck a balance already, but have apparently been swayed by the reception of another movie.  Hopefully whatever they add doesn't feel too forced or spoil the pacing of the movie.

I think it's more in response to the reception of their own trailer which was lighter in tone. I mean, if negativity about seriousness was their concern then Man of Steel being rated lower than Superm Returns (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...ahem, sorry, the fact critics actually did that still blows my mind) should have been enough of an indicator. And it's not like Batman vs Superman hasn't done well enough for itself financially. So I really do think it's the trailer reception and not the BvS reception that's driving this.