By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
d21lewis on 16 April 2016
Edit Thread
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Okie_Loki said:

No idea which thread to use as there's a few that have been updated within the past few days by various posters.

Anyway, I'm posting a link from the one site that if you've kept up with, you'd know they've made it an attempt to squash this movie (they have probably 4 negative articles to every positive one - I'm looking at you IGN):

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/04/15/the-original-cut-of-batman-v-superman-was-four-hours-long

So, the original take was supposedly 4 hours long and fleshed out more of everything, BUT, this wasn't 4 hours that could have been shown in theaters necessarily, this was just the first take of everything filmed as all movies do. The Directors Cut, which we're hearing rumors may be released in theaters soon, and will be available on DVD/BR, is right around 3 hours, so an extra 30 mins. of content from the theatrical release (2 hours 31 mins, I believe). It should also be noted that on average it was only 10-20 mins longer than most MCU movies. So again, I don't quite understand everyone saying it was too long.

However, reading peoples comments, hearing peoples opinions, and reading the critics reviews, it wouldn't have mattered, really, how long this movie was. Because for the people complaining it was too long, are saying there should have been more. And the people saying it's too short (there are few) are saying there should have been a part 1 and 2. There really was no winning with this movie, and perhaps WB is to blame as they rushed their universe and had only ONE film as its foundation (MoS). They really need to learn from this movie and make the rest of their slate the best it can be.

The movie was badly edited for storytelling but great for action. They crammed multiple stories into one rushed script and tried to fit it into two and a half hours to catch up to Marvel after Green Lantern failed.

The consensus between professional reviewers and harsh amateur critics seems to be that the movie shouldve been split up into t wo movies to have a more coherent script. Seriously...Superman dying should feel like a loss of hope in the world. They squandered the denoument (build up) to create an excuse for lesser characters to be needed and snyder admitted this.. Captain America was a hated goody two shoes character with little to relate to because of his american good guy persona but Civil War sees Captain America turn into Captain Consitution which means he will stand up for peoples rights even if the governent wants to break the rules. This is something that DC has screwed up Superman with that his character could never take that turn to better himself in the eyes of the many.

Two movies airing one year after the other no different than the hunger games. Do two films worth of work and air them one year after the next.

One last post and then I'm done. I swear!

 

Anyway, I love the idea of making two movies. They probably should have done it.  Hell, release them the same year like The Matrix!

The only thing I see being a problem is that several people actual said the beginning of the film was the best part and, from the fight to the end, it was just mindless chaos.  Others said the first half was boring and directionless but it made up for it with some good action near the end.

 

Only a few liked it from beginning to end and a lot seem to have disliked the whole thing. Two movies would have possibly meant that those who disliked the whole thing and those who disliked the beginning weren't coming back for part two.

I might be wrong, though. A good cliffhanger probably would have brought them back.