Hey, hey, hey, Dacetacular nation! Check out episode 146 of The Dace Man Show with hosts The Dace Man, Frank Ward, Gibby, Patty McTits and Travis Goss!!
::SPORTS NEWS::
The NHL, MLB, NFL, and our favorite: curling!
::WEIRD NEWS WITH GIBBY::
Gibby brings the class to the show with weird things going on in the world!
::FRANK'S CORNER::
Frank-tastic facts for your everyday life
::CELEB NEWS::
Dace is back, and he's packing a punch since he's on some diet pills and Red Bull. Get ready Hollywood!
Plus the occasional game ofWho Said It, the crowning of The Doucebag of The Week,and much, much more, only on The Dace Man Show.
As always, check back regularly to see what Chris "The Dace Man" Dace is looking at (and no, not just porn), as well as all of the other bloggers here at Fanboys Anonymous. Remember, keyboard warriors: leave your feedback! Until the next time, for the few, the proud, and, of course,the Dacetacular, grab a beer—and in this case a comfy seat in front of your computer—and check out what's going on here in the Dace-Sphere. See ya next time!
Listen live to The Dace Man Show every Tuesday at 8 p.m. EST on Mega Powers Radio.
What is up Dacetacular Nation? I know it's been a while since yours truly has done an article that isn't shamelessly plugging The Dace Man Show here, right here, on Fanboys Anonymous!
Totally just went for the cheap Mick Foley plug to win back your affection. That being said, The Dace Man Show has made some fruitful connections, which allows me to bring you a game review for the latest indy platformer on PlayStation 4.
Being a guy who is usually late to damn near every trendy thing, this was no exception. The game originally had launched a Kickstarter campaign back in 2011 and had many ups and downs before it made its way to Steam. The creators over at tinyBuild have hit a huge milestone by launching No Time To Explain on the PlayStation Network for the PlayStation 4.
The game includes a unique sense of humor with several maze-like boards culminating with an eventual boss. For the simpleminded like myself, I consistently hit the "X" button to jump but eventually got used to the "L2" functionality, but that was seriously the only thing I complained about, mainly because of my terrible gaming skills. I found myself laughing and engrossed into this world to the point where I intended to only play for five to ten minutes and walked away almost an hour later.
Check out gameplay footage below with yours truly as I review and thoroughly enjoy No Time To Explain.
As always, check back regularly to see what Chris "The Dace Man" Dace is looking at (and no, not just porn), as well as all of the other bloggers here at Fanboys Anonymous. Remember, keyboard warriors: leave your feedback! Until the next time, for the few, the proud, and, of course,the Dacetacular, grab a beer—and in this case.... well there's just no time to explain—and check out what's going on here in the Dace-Sphere. See ya next time!
Listen live to The Dace Man Show every Tuesday at 8 p.m. EST on Mega Powers Radio.
Welcome to another edition of Wed, Bed, or Dead—the Fanboys Anonymous equivalent to games such as Marry/Fuck/Kill, or "Kill, Bang, Marry" or any of those other alternative names with the same "would you rather" ranking concept.
If you're unfamiliar with these games, here are the rules: three men or women will be pitted against each other and you are forced to place each of them into a specific category of your choosing. You cannot double up on any category, replace people, or anything else. You must pick one to "Wed" (marry), one to "Bed" (have sex with), and for "Dead" (kill)—in theory, of course.
Wed, Bed, or Dead: Wonder Woman
Lynda Carter vs. Adrianne Palicki vs. Gal Gadot
Lynda Carter was the first actress to play Wonder Woman in a live action format, starring as the protagonist in a television series which ran from 1975 to 1979. While she was limited in what she could do when it came to special effects and the mindset of a different generation who still hadn't quite grasped a lot of aspects of the superhero genre, she became a pop culture icon in many regards as well as the first crush for a whole generation of boys.
Adrianne Palicki is better known as Mockingbird (Bobbi Morse) on Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. television series, but before that came to pass, she was cast as the next incarnation of Wonder Woman in the pilot for a 2011 show. Reception for this was considerably poor to the point where it never even aired, let alone being picked up for a regular season. This version tried to keep some campy elements from before while also having one foot in the more modern era, which proved to be a disastrous clash of ridiculousness and attitude like it was suffering from some kind of bipolar mood swing every other scene.
Gal Gadot is the most recent actress to portray the character in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. There was an intense backlash to her casting, with many criticizing her look (both the size of her breasts and her musculature) as well as her acting experience, predicting she couldn't possibly be able to bring the character to life. However, to many, she was the standout hero of the film, and despite the weak reception the movie received, a good portion of the fan base is more excited than ever for her solo film set to come out June 23, 2017.
My Votes
Wedding Proposal = Gal Gadot Bedroom Invitation = Adrianne Palicki Death Sentence = Lynda Carter
For these games, I like to use a three-point criteria of Attraction, Personality and Wildcard. Attraction and Personality are pretty self-explanatory, focusing on their looks and what goes on behind the scenes. Something like their intelligence, character traits, behavioral attitude, and so forth would go under Personality, while their physical appearance and sexiness make up the bulk of Attraction. As far as Wildcard goes, those could be any other factors that take away or add to someone's appeal.
Palicki's version of the character is kind of a bitch, but she's much better looking in my opinion than Lynda Carter, as I don't have nostalgia goggles to tie me to that time period. Gal Gadot's version is just as attractive as Palicki's for physical means, but didn't get under my skin as far as her personality went. She was assertive in the right way, wholeheartedly heroic, and a bit of a tease, too, to show that she has a little bit of humor.
Those are my choices, but what would you pick for these three?
Who gets the wedding ring, who gets the wild night of passion and who gets the guillotine?
Tell us who you picked for what in the comments below as well as suggestions for the next edition!
Welcome to another edition of 6 Flicks Picks, wherein I list all of the upcoming films that are scheduled to be released in the United States for the month which is about to begin and break down which ones I'll be watching in theaters, which ones I'll wait to rent at home, and which ones I'll be skipping out on entirely. After going through the list, I'll choose which six films stand out to me as the ones I want to see the most, even if there are more or less than six that interest me.
Note: The list below is based primarily off the expanded nationwide USA release dates on IMDB as well as some other random outlets if possible, so some information may be different. If I am missing some of the limited releases or the dates conflict in some fashion, please let me know in the comments below and any adjustments and corrections will be made!
Without further ado, another new month means another new set of films, so what's coming soon to theaters in April 2016?
RELEASE DATE: April 1, 2016
Everybody Wants Some!!
Synopsis: A group of college baseball players navigate their way through the freedoms and responsibilities of unsupervised adulthood.
Will I watch? = Maybe
God's Not Dead 2
Synopsis: When a high school teacher is asked a question in class about Jesus, her
reasoned response lands her in deep trouble and could expel God from
the public square once and for all.
Will I watch? = No
Miles Ahead
Synopsis: An exploration of the life and music of Miles Davis.
Will I watch? = No
The Dark Horse
Synopsis: An emotionally charged and inspiring drama about a man who searches for
the courage to lead, despite his own adversities - finding purpose and
hope in passing on his gift to the children in his community.
Will I watch? = No
Meet the Blacks
Synopsis: Beverly Hills is about to get real dangerous.
Will I watch? = No
Kill Your Friends
Synopsis: An A&R man working at the height of the Britpop music craze goes to
extremes in order to find his next hit.
Will I watch? = No
Natural Born Pranksters
Synopsis: YouTube's best pranksters, Roman Atwood, Vitaly Z, and Dennis Roady make the leap to the big screen.
Will I watch? = No
Standing Tall
Synopsis: The story centers on a young delinquent as he comes of age.
Will I watch? = No
RELEASE DATE: April 8, 2016
Hardcore Henry
Synopsis: A first-person action film from the eyes of Henry, who's resurrected
from death with no memory. He must discover his identity and save his
wife from a warlord with a plan to bio-engineer soldiers.
Will I watch? = Yes
The Boss
Synopsis: A titan of industry is sent to prison after she's caught for insider
trading. When she emerges ready to rebrand herself as America's latest
sweetheart, not everyone she screwed over is so quick to forgive and
forget.
Will I watch? = No
Before I Wake
Synopsis: A young couple adopt an orphaned child whose dreams - and nightmares - manifest physically as he sleeps.
Will I watch? = No
Demolition
Synopsis: A successful investment banker struggles after losing his wife in a tragic car crash.
Will I watch? = Maybe
Louder Than Bombs
Synopsis: The fractious family of a father and his two sons confront their
different feelings and memories of their deceased wife and mother, a
famed war photographer.
Synopsis: An orphan boy is raised in the jungle with the help of a pack of wolves, a bear, and a black panther.
Will I watch? = Yes
Barbershop: The Next Cut
Synopsis: It's been more than 10 years since our last appointment at Calvin's
Barbershop. Calvin and his longtime crew are still there, but the shop
has undergone some major changes. Most noticeably, our once
male-dominated sanctuary is now co-ed. The ladies bring their own
flavor, drama and gossip to the shop challenging the fellas at every
turn. Despite the good times and camaraderie within the shop, the
surrounding community has taken a turn for the worse, forcing Calvin and
our crew to come together to not only save the shop, but their
neighborhood.
Will I watch? = No
Criminal
Synopsis: The memories & skills of a deceased CIA agent are implanted into an unpredictable and dangerous convict.
Will I watch? = Maybe
Green Room
Synopsis: After witnessing a murder, a punk rock band is forced into a vicious
fight for survival against a group of maniacal skinheads.
Will I watch? = No
Fan
Synopsis: An Indian superstar becomes an unhealthy obsession for a Delhi-based fan.
Will I watch? = No
Sing Street
Synopsis: A boy growing up in Dublin during the 1980s escapes his strained family
life by starting a band and moving to London.
Will I watch? = No
Rio, I Love You
Synopsis: A series of short films set in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro.
Will I watch? = No
Our Last Tango
Synopsis: "Our Last Tango" is a story of love between the two most famous dancers
in tango's history. And the story of their tremendous love of tango.
MarÃa Nieves Rego (81) and Juan Carlos Copes (84) met when they were 14
and 17, and they danced together for nearly fifty years. In all those
years they loved and hated each other and went through several painful
separations, but always got back together. Now, Juan and MarÃa are
willing to open up about their love, their hatred, and their passion. In
Our Last Tango Juan and MarÃa tell their story to a group of young
tango dancers and choreographers from Buenos Aires, who transform the
most beautiful, moving and dramatic moments of Juan and Maria's lives
into incredible tango-choreographies. These beautifully-shot
choreographies compliment the soul-searching interviews and documentary
moments of the film to make this an unforgettable journey into the heart
of the tango.
Will I watch? = No
Colonia
Synopsis: A young woman's desperate search for her abducted boyfriend that draws
her into the infamous Colonia Dignidad, a sect nobody ever escaped from.
Will I watch? = No
RELEASE DATE: April 22, 2016
The Huntsman: Winter's War
Synopsis: As two evil sisters prepare to conquer the land; two renegades - Eric
the Huntsman - who previously aided Snow White in defeating Ravenna, and
his forbidden lover, Sara set out to stop them.
Will I watch? = No
Elvis & Nixon
Synopsis: The untold true story behind the meeting between the King of Rock 'n
Roll and President Nixon, resulting in this revealing, yet humorous
moment immortalized in the most requested photograph in the National
Archives.
Will I watch? = No
A Hologram for the King
Synopsis: A failed American businessman looks to recoup his losses by traveling to
Saudi Arabia and selling his idea to a wealthy monarch.
Will I watch? = No
Compadres
Synopsis: A disgruntled Mexican cop is forced to work with a teenage hacker to
hunt down the criminals who killed his wife, and dismantle their
operation.
Will I watch? = No
The Meddler
Synopsis: An aging widow from New York City follows her daughter to Los Angeles in
hopes of starting a new life after her husband passes away.
Will I watch? = No
Sworn Virgin
Synopsis: Hana Doda, still a girl, escapes from her destiny of being wife and
servant which is imposed on the women in the inhospitable mountains in
Albania. She appeals to the old law of the Kanun and swears her eternal
virginity thus becoming a "sworn virgin". She turns into a man, takes up
a rifle and becomes Mark, Mark Doda. It is in exchange for this
sacrifice that Hana is allowed to be considered at the same level as
other men. Her battle does not only mean that she must rebel against
what destiny has been writing on her body for centuries, but she must
also reject, in name of this rebellion, every form of love. A refusal
that becomes her prison. After more than ten years spent in solitude in
the mountains as a man, she becomes brutish and she transforms to
survive the hardship, the cold and misery, until something returns to
awaken her again... Hana decides to change life and painstakingly regain
her body. She knows that leaving the mountains is the price she will
have to pay to be able to go back to living. A journey drags her away
from her arid land, a journey that will mean she will have to revisit
her past and exhume memories and feelings that she was made to bury in
oblivion. Following a path that is a continuous and subtle crossing of
two different and distant worlds, of the past and the future. In a
modern Milan metropolis, she struggles to leave her man's clothes and
learns to be woman. She experiences the heady sensation of physical
contact with others, and she finds dear and beloved people that life had
taken from her and there opens an unexpected and forbidden possibility
of love. Mark not only returns to being Hana, but she is also able to
piece the two souls back together that for years have lived inside her
body and she is reborn as a new, free and complete.
Will I watch? = No
Tale of Tales
Synopsis: The film serves as Garrone's English-language debut and will interweave
three separate story strands bookended by brief bits in which Italians
Alba Rohrwacher and Massimo Ceccherini will play a street circus family.
In one tale Salma Hayek will play a jealous queen who forfeits her
husband's life. In another, Vincent Cassel plays a king whose passion is
stoked by two mysterious sisters.
Will I watch? = No
RELEASE DATE: April 29, 2016
Keanu
Synopsis: Friends hatch a plot to retrieve a stolen kitten by posing as drug dealers for a street gang.
Will I watch? = Maybe
Mother's Day
Synopsis: Intersecting stories with different moms collide on Mother's Day.
Will I watch? = No
Ratchet and Clank
Synopsis: Ratchet and Clank tells the story of two unlikely heroes as they
struggle to stop a vile alien named Chairman Drek from destroying every
planet in the Solana Galaxy. When the two stumble upon a dangerous
weapon capable of destroying entire planets, they must join forces with a
team of colorful heroes called The Galactic Rangers in order to save
the galaxy. Along the way they'll learn about heroism, friendship, and
the importance of discovering one's own identity.
Will I watch? = No
A Beautiful Planet
Synopsis: An exploration of Earth and beyond as seen from outer space.
Will I watch? = Maybe
Viva
Synopsis: When everything is for sale, what's the value of love? Jesus does make
up for a troupe of drag performers in Havana, but dreams of being a
performer. When he finally gets his chance to be on stage, a stranger
emerges from the crowd and punches him in the face. The stranger is his
father Angel, a former boxer, who has been absent from his life for 15
years. As father and son clash over their opposing expectations of each
other, Viva becomes a love story as the men struggle to understand one
another and become a family again.
Will I watch? = No
The Man Who Knew Infinity
Synopsis: Growing up poor in Madras, India, Srinivasa Ramanujan Iyengar earns
admittance to Cambridge University during WWI, where he becomes a
pioneer in mathematical theories with the guidance of his professor,
G.H. Hardy.
Will I watch? = No
6 FLICKS PICKS
Which films make the cut?
6. Keanu — Having never seen a full episode of Key and Peele's show, nor John Wick, I probably won't be seeing this, but I do think both are interesting and a mixture of the two sounds intriguing. John Wick seemed like a cool action movie and I've laughed at some Key and Peele videos, so why not, right?
5. A Beautiful Planet — Space is interesting and if we get some cool shots of Earth from above, awesome.
4. Demolition — Although the premise doesn't sound the most awe-inspiring in the world, the cast and the overall concept is a much easier sell than most of the other releases for this month for me.
3. Criminal — Once you've paired up a supernatural element to law enforcement, you've got me interested.
2. Hardcore Henry — I was pumped for Cloverfield back in the day because of it's filmmaking style and this takes it to a whole new level. It could be hot garbage, but it will definitely be one of the most unique movie experiences I'll have for the year.
1. The Jungle Book — I was never the biggest fan of the animated film and I never once read the book it drew inspiration from, but holy hell, the visuals of this alone deserve my money.
Welcome to the latest edition of Making the Grade - a review format segment here on Fanboys Anonymous where we break down the five major components of something and give it a score based on the standard report card lineup: A, B, C, D, and F for a total failure.
The next report card is for the indie horror Green Room.
Green Room - directed and written by Jeremy Saulnier; starring Alia Shawkat, Imogen Poots, Anton Yelchin, Patrick Stewart.
WARNING - SPOILERS BELOW
CHARACTERS: B+
Some movies with ensemble casts don't bother with character development, but Green Room is different. For a big chunk of the movie, eight people are trapped in a small room, and while the action is intense, the audience doesn't get lost with who is who. We identify with the characters, specially the members of The Ain't Rights, and we want them to survive.
However, Darcy is probably the best character. He gives out orders to his hooligans with such calm and collectedness that we smell how dangerous he is. This man has done many "clean-ups" before and he gets away with it.
He is the perfect villain.
ACTING: A
It is no surprise Sir Patrick Stewart slays as Darcy, the leader of a white supremacist group. He is manipulative, powerful, and extremely creepy. But then again, we all know the man can act. Anton Yelchin and Alia Shawkat are also amazingly believable as members of the struggling punk rock band The Ain't Rights. As their day takes a turn for the worse, they behave as most of us would if we were trapped by Neo-Nazis: they make mistakes, they get hurt badly, they cry, they are terrified.
Imogen Poots is also fun as Amber, the slightly deadpan semipsycho member of another band. She delivers one of the most gruesome scenes in the movie, and her acting matches its intensity like a glove.
Nobody does a poor job in Green Room. This is the first movie Saulnier did not shoot himself, since he wanted to focus primarily on the actors and their performance. A winning choice.
VISUALS (FX, MAKEUP, COSTUMES, SETS): A
This movie is rich in texture. The sets are gritty, dirty, and completely authentic to the point it seems we are truly in an underground skinhead infested warehouse. The costumes are also perfect, but what truly shines in this category is the special effects.
The wounds and blood work in this movie is mind blowing. It is visceral, extremely realistic, and not for the weak. We are talking about gunshot wounds to the head, lethal dog bites to the throat, machete slashes and a lot more. It was delicious.
MUSIC & SOUND: A-
The music is as intense as the action in this movie. The soundtrack is filled with hard rock songs, some of which are original, and others are punk classics like Dead Kennedys's "Nazi Punks Fuck Off." It fits the movie, and you don't have to be a screamo fan to appreciate it.
TONE (ACTION, ROMANCE, COMEDY): A
This thriller-action-horror movie is an adrenaline rush. With a few jump-scares, this movie shines with its tension building and psychological warfare.
ACTION: Get ready to have your heart racing. The action in this movie is not for the weak, since it is covered in blood and gnarly wounds. You won't be seeing car chases, but you will get machete fights, dog attacks, bones breaking, and plenty of guns.
COMEDY: There are some moments of light comic relief like most horror movies, but no laugh-out-loud beats.
ROMANCE: No romance whatsoever in this movie. Thank the gods. The story doesn't ask for it or have room for it, so it was refreshing to see the director didn't try to force something odd down our throats.
FINAL GRADE: A
Green Room is quite possibly one of the most original indie horror movies to date. With rich aesthetic and interesting character development, it is hard not to appreciate this movie even if you are not a horrorphile. However if you are not used to extreme violence, this movie might be hard to watch. The special effects makeup department delivers amazingly realistic wounds and deaths and director Jeremy Saulnier makes sure you are at the edge of your seat the whole entire time. It is tense, gritty, and dirty. It was close to perfect and this Fangirl thinks you should watch it.
Hey, hey, hey, Dacetacular nation! Check out episode 145 of The Dace Man Show with hosts The Dace Man, Frank Ward, Gibby, and Travis Goss!!
::SPORTS NEWS::
The NHL, MLB, NFL, and our favorite: curling!
::WEIRD NEWS WITH GIBBY::
Gibby brings the class to the show with weird things going on in the world!
::FRANK'S CORNER::
Frank-tastic facts for your everyday life
::CELEB NEWS::
Dace is back, and he's packing a punch since he's on some diet pills and Red Bull. Get ready Hollywood!
Plus the occasional game ofWho Said It, the crowning of The Doucebag of The Week,and much, much more, only on The Dace Man Show.
As always, check back regularly to see what Chris "The Dace Man" Dace is looking at (and no, not just porn), as well as all of the other bloggers here at Fanboys Anonymous. Remember, keyboard warriors: leave your feedback! Until the next time, for the few, the proud, and, of course,the Dacetacular, grab a beer—and in this case a comfy seat in front of your computer—and check out what's going on here in the Dace-Sphere. See ya next time!
Listen live to The Dace Man Show every Tuesday at 8 p.m. EST on Mega Powers Radio.
We're back with another unboxing video, this time from SuperGeekBox.com. Their theme for March 2016 is Lightning, focusing on characters like Sonic the Hedgehog, Pikachu, The Flash, Superman and others..
The SUPER EPIC Geek & Gamer Box
$40+ Value in each box!
5-8 awesome items every month.
Guaranteed exclusive Ultra-EPIC Shirt!
If you want to get in on the fun and reserve yourself some cool stuff for next month, place your order at Super Geek Box.
Thanks again to Super Geek Box for sending this our way!
Episode 27 of the Fanboys Anonymous Reviewpoint podcast reviews Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.
Hosted by Tony Mango joined by Caroline Oliveira and Shaun Walker
You can check out the podcast below on YouTube, iTunes, and Stitcher. Make sure to subscribe!
Fearing the actions of a god-like super hero left unchecked, Gotham City's own formidable, forceful vigilante takes on Metropolis's most revered, modern-day savior, while the world wrestles with what sort of hero it really needs. And with Batman and Superman at war with one another, a new threat quickly arises, putting mankind in greater danger than it's ever known before.
Directed by: Zack Snyder
Written by: Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer
Starring: Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Clark Kent / Superman), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Jesse Eisenberg (Lex Luthor), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Holly Hunter (Senator Finch), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Scoot McNairy, Ray Fisher (Victor Stone) and Laurence Fishburne (Perry White)
Welcome to the latest edition of Making the Grade—a review format segment here on Fanboys Anonymous where we break down the five major components of something and give it a score based on the standard report card lineup: A, B, C, D, and F for a total failure.
The next report card is for the latest film in the DC Extended Universe film franchise, entitled Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.
Fearing the actions of a god-like super hero left unchecked, Gotham City's own formidable, forceful vigilante takes on Metropolis's most revered, modern-day savior, while the world wrestles with what sort of hero it really needs. And with Batman and Superman at war with one another, a new threat quickly arises, putting mankind in greater danger than it's ever known before.
Directed by: Zack Snyder
Written by: Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer
Starring: Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Clark Kent / Superman), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Jesse Eisenberg (Lex Luthor), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Holly Hunter (Senator Finch), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Scoot McNairy, Ray Fisher (Victor Stone) and Laurence Fishburne (Perry White)
WARNING - SPOILERS BELOW
STORY: A+
Basically, it's exactly what you expected from the trailers with no real surprises, but that's okay, cause the story works. It's a little thin in some areas, but since the movie is long, I'm expecting some of those elements to have been fleshed out more in deleted scenes. This movie had a cram a lot in it, and it could have been much more disjointed than it was, so I think they did a fine job balancing things out.
Batman's cynicism that he needs to stop Superman before he becomes the threat he could potentially be is totally within his character, as is Lex Luthor's jealousy and how everything comes together. I'm a big fan of how Lex was looking into the other metahumans and how that brought Wonder Woman into the fold, which allowed her to catch up to speed rather quickly. This is pretty much what I was hoping the movie would be when it was announced, outside of some details that I would have changed.
CHARACTERS / ACTING: B
This Batman is probably my favorite interpretation on the big screen now. He just kills this role both in the cowl and outside of it. Unfortunately, he also kills other people, which is totally against what Batman's code is. However, I was paying attention as closely as possible, and the majority of those times, Batman isn't actually killing someone. At times, though, it's hard to argue that he wasn't just firing bullets for the pure sake of permanently disposing of that particular enemy. As much of a Batman fan as I am, that bugs me, but since there wasn't a scene of him flat out murdering someone like back in the Tim Burton era, I'm willing to let it slide a bit. I was worried they were making him too old, but that didn't seem to be a factor, so I'm glad about that.
Superman is much more "Superman" than he was in Man of Steel, thankfully. Henry Cavill didn't have to change much about his portrayal, but the script needed to put him in the right direction to pull it off, and he did. I'm excited to see how he takes Clark to the next level in the future.
Wonder Woman was a surprise. Gal Gadot did a good enough job that I'm sold on her, although she was kept to a minimum in a lot of scenes, so it will be interesting to see how she handles more dialogue and character work than what happened here. I don't think she's the standout like others have said, but she worked.
I still don't like the casting of Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Really, that's all I dislike about that whole character from the first film and this one, and I think a different actress who is younger and has better chemistry with Cavill would do it better service, but I think she was a step up.
Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor wasn't as bad as I was expecting, but he still just was the wrong direction. This is 75% Lex Luthor and 25% "do you even know who Lex Luthor is?" I maintain that someone else who resembled the character more on a physical level should have been cast. Why is he not actually bald, too? Why do we always have a Lex with hair when the character is iconic for being bald? He isn't even permanently rendered bald in this, as they just shave his head! So dumb. I didn't hate this version of the character as much as I thought I would, but that doesn't mean I love it, either.
Speaking of that theme, Doomsday fits a similar mold. He shouldn't be radiating pulses of energy and he should have had more spikes. Bizarro could have been just as good of a villain, where he would be the corrupted version of Kal-El if they had used the birthing chamber (and Lex manipulated it for his purposes, of course) and it would have fulfilled a similar role in the movie. I'm okay with this version of Doomsday, but I'm also a little disappointed in it as well.
The Flash looks dumb. Ezra Miller was not the right choice. What's up with the facial hair and that armored suit?? Ridiculous.
Aquaman....meh. Kind of cool for a character I don't like. I've never liked how Cyborg is given such a big push with the Justice League and we're getting him but no Green Lantern, but his cameo was decent. KGBeast, cool. Mercy Graves was cool. Perry White was better this time around, as was the characterization of Jonathan Kent.
By the way, having Batman and Superman connect over the fact that their mothers are both named Martha? Some are probably going to think that's ridiculous, but I loved it.
As far as characters and acting goes, major points for Superman, Batman (minus the killing), and Wonder Woman, but points deducted for Lex Luthor and Doomsday as well as The Flash and Amy Adams.
VISUALS (FX, MAKEUP, COSTUMES, SETS): A
There's more color this time! Yay! No real complaints with the visuals on this one. The suits for Batman and Superman are the best on-screen versions so far (outside of Batman still having some issues turning his head). The special effects are on par with what I was hoping for, and none of it really looks fake. I could do without the Wonder Woman leaping forward shot being stylized the way it was, but it's not like that "bugged" me, either—it just isn't the choice I would have made. All in all, for the visuals, big thumbs up.
MUSIC & SOUND: C–
This is lacking a bit. We joked after watching the movie that every theme was basically BOM BOM BOM with drums except for Wonder Woman's, which didn't quite fit her at all in our opinion (our opinion meaning myself and 8 other people that I saw the movie with, so not just my own). I still think it's sad that we haven't had a theme for Batman that we could hum since Batman & Robin, even though I love Hans Zimmer's score for Christopher Nolan's films. This time around, I was hoping to get an actual theme and not just background mood music, but just as that happened with Man of Steel, we're seemingly sticking with the low key score.
TONE (ACTION, ROMANCE, COMEDY): B+
ACTION: Awesome in so many ways, but my favorite was Batman's fight at the end.
COMEDY: I smirked a few times, which is more than I was expecting. One or two more legit laughs wouldn't have hurt the movie, though, and I can see why some people are saying it's too morose.
ROMANCE: I still don't buy into the chemistry of Amy Adams with Henry Cavill, but their relationship was handled much better this time. There weren't any other romantic plots in this movie, so some points are docked.
FINAL GRADE: B+
This is FAR better than what I expected it to be, as I was nervous it would annoy me as much as Man of Steel did, but I ended up loving the majority of it. I think it's a fun ride that has a few bumps along the way, where my biggest issue is that they made some of the wrong choices with the direction they were going with the characters—namely this version of Lex and how they weren't more careful with Batman and his code of ethics as well as the look of Barry Allen. This made me more excited about the future of these films than before, and as long as they don't do something stupid like kill Dick Grayson off as the dead Robin or make Superman evil when he comes back from the dead, I think I'll enjoy Justice League.
WHAT DID YOU THINK OF BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE?
On the latest edition of Minute Man Reviews hosted by Tony Mango, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is given as full of a review as possible in under 60 seconds.
Check out the video below and be sure to subscribe and leave your comments on what you thought of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice!
Fearing the actions of a god-like super hero left unchecked, Gotham City's own formidable, forceful vigilante takes on Metropolis's most revered, modern-day savior, while the world wrestles with what sort of hero it really needs. And with Batman and Superman at war with one another, a new threat quickly arises, putting mankind in greater danger than it's ever known before.
Directed by: Zack Snyder
Written by: Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer
Starring: Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Clark Kent / Superman), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Jesse Eisenberg (Lex Luthor), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Holly Hunter (Senator Finch), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Scoot McNairy, Ray Fisher (Victor Stone) and Laurence Fishburne (Perry White)
Hey, hey, hey, Dacetacular nation! Check out episode 144 of The Dace Man Show with hosts The Dace Man, Frank Ward, Gibby, and Travis Goss!!
::SPORTS NEWS::
The NHL, MLB, NFL, and our favorite: curling!
::WEIRD NEWS WITH GIBBY::
Gibby brings the class to the show with weird things going on in the world!
::FRANK'S CORNER::
Frank-tastic facts for your everyday life
::CELEB NEWS::
Dace is back, and he's packing a punch since he's on some diet pills and Red Bull. Get ready Hollywood!
Plus the occasional game ofWho Said It, the crowning of The Doucebag of The Week,and much, much more, only on The Dace Man Show.
As always, check back regularly to see what Chris "The Dace Man" Dace is looking at (and no, not just porn), as well as all of the other bloggers here at Fanboys Anonymous. Remember, keyboard warriors: leave your feedback! Until the next time, for the few, the proud, and, of course,the Dacetacular, grab a beer—and in this case a comfy seat in front of your computer—and check out what's going on here in the Dace-Sphere. See ya next time!
Listen live to The Dace Man Show every Tuesday at 8 p.m. EST on Mega Powers Radio.
On the March 2016 edition of the FA Movie Club podcast (episode 24), Fanboys Anonymous members give their thoughts on the different Batman and Superman films that have been released over the years.
Panelists: Tony Mango (host) with Caroline Oliveira and Shaun Walker
THIS MONTH'S SET OF MOVIES:
List of Superman Films
Superman (1948)
Atom Man vs. Superman (1950)
Superman and the Mole Men (1951)
Superman (1978)
Superman II
Superman III
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
Superman Returns
Man of Steel
Superman: Brainiac Attacks
Superman: Doomsday
All-Star Superman
Superman vs. The Elite
Superman: Unbound
List of Batman Films
Batman (1943)
Batman and Robin (1949)
Batman: The Movie
Batman (1989)
Batman Returns
Batman Forever
Batman & Robin
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero
Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker
Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman
The Batman vs. Dracula
Batman: Gotham Knight
Batman: Under the Red Hood
Batman: Year One
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1 and 2
Batman: Assault on Arkham
Son of Batman
Batman vs. Robin
Batman Unlimited: Animal Instincts
Batman Unlimited: Monster Mayhem
Batman: Bad Blood
List of Superman/Batman Films
Superman/Batman: Apocalypse
Superman/Batman: Public Enemies
You can listen to the podcast below. Make sure to subscribe!
Welcome to the third edition of Fanboys Fix It, where instead of just complaining about what we don't like about something, we try to figure out how we can make it better. With the upcoming release of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, it seems as though even the most excited fans are still holding their breath quite a bit about the film actually being good. This is due to several things making us nervous, such as the casting of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, the look of Doomsday, the inclusion and casting of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman and more. While all of those things factor in greatly to my concerns, the biggest thing weighing on my mind is how problematic I saw Zack Snyder's previous entry in the DC film franchise, Man of Steel.
My gut reaction to that movie when I saw it in theaters was to dislike a number of things about it, and over several years with multiple viewings, I was hoping my opinion would change. On the contrary, I still take issue with exactly the same problems I had with it from the start, which further cements the theory in my brain that they are legitimate gripes and not just minor flaws.
With that being said, how do you fix Man of Steel?
Here is a list of what I feel are the errors of the film and how I would have fixed them in a rewrite.
Core Problem #1: The Brainiac Problem
Since this movie was the start of the DC movie universe and a reboot of the Superman story, it needed to establish the world of Krypton yet again. In the past, we've seen it portrayed as a crystalline world with the old films as well as having more of a Jetsons flair in the Bruce Timm animated series. This time around, Snyder's style was a weird, sepia-toned (of course) bio-mechanical look that I personally didn't like whatsoever. I mean, what's up with those odd dragon creatures?? I would have much rather seen something similar to how Asgard was brought to life in Thor, but I'll dismiss this as not a true error of the film and more of a personal preference. I would like it better, but it doesn't improve the movie on a grand scale and if lots of people like it, good for them.
Putting that aside, though, why does this movie do its best to make things more complicated than it needed to be, and in the process, also ignore one of Superman's top 3 best villains ever?
In Man of Steel, we're introduced to this idea of the Growth Codex—a single skull that contains the genetic layout of every Kryptonian. All births on the planet are basically test tube babies and the codex is used to implant a predestination of purpose into each individual. Some are meant to grow up to be scientists, others are soldiers, and so on. The only person who doesn't fit the mold is Kal-El, cause he's a natural birth. We get the symbolism, guys. Way to hit us over the head with it.
Why couldn't the codex be Brainiac? Although the character didn't originally start out as much more than a silly name for a green and purple alien who is really smart, arguably the most widely appreciated version of Brainiac nowadays is the Brain InterActive Construct—artificial intelligence from Krypton that regulates everyday life and knowingly puts the continuation of its own existence above the Kryptonians themselves when it deems the planet doomed. Its justification is that it holds all of the records, so it's the best way of preserving the history of the planet.
First, that right there should be reason enough to tie it into the Growth Codex. It's a computer system that has all of the information! That's the same thing, but they just didn't want to call it Brainiac, cause they wanted it to be a skull instead. Hell, considering the appearance of Brainiac, they could have still kept the skull concept, but just referred to it a single, quickly passing time as "BrainIAC" and it would have tied the two together for future installments.
Second, the idea of Brainiac hoping to preserve Krypton was somehow transferred into Zod for the movie. His story is that he was predestined to be a warrior and that's all he knows how to do, and he just wants to preserve his lineage. Shouldn't Brainiac be doing that? Shouldn't Zod be more concerned with ruling the planet? It's as if they wanted to do Brainiac's story, but gave it to Zod as the vessel.
Also, look at the technology going on. They bothered to have Kelex (awesome) as a metallic, artificially intelligent nanotechnological computer system on Krypton and the World Engines have fucking tentacles! These are totally Brainiac concepts!!
If you have these elements to your story and you have a character that people love which could be used to help simplify things and make it not only easier to tell the story, but in a cooler way to please the fans, why wouldn't you do it? When you ask your GPS for directions and it tells you the quickest, easiest route, why would you rather opt to take a longer path with more detours that puts you on unpaved roads and costs you more gas?
Now, the DCEU is set up in a way where if they try to bring Brainiac into the fold, they'll be retreading on ground they've already covered. Would anyone care to see Superman fight giant machines with tentacles, or would they just claim it's a repeat of Man of Steel? How do you do a story about the preservation of Krypton and being built to serve a purpose when you've already done that with Zod?
This is how you accomplish the same basic ideas of the movie, but make it better:
When you establish Krypton, you talk about how there's a 50/50 split between biological and mechanical. You keep the weird dragon creatures and some of the style that I personally don't like, and you chalk that up to the bio side. You also establish that the mechanical side is a product of The Brain InterActive Construct.
The governing bodies of Krypton are the council that we see plus the insights of Brainiac. They don't take sentient creatures out of the equation, but they also rely heavily on the computer system to offer guidance. Why not, considering how it has all the technical readouts and such?
A bit too much trust is put in Brainiac, though. In fact, Krypton's so dependent upon it that they've gotten to a point where no natural births have taken place in hundreds of years. When they started expanding and exploring planets, they used Brainiac to artificially inseminate the explorers and to always make sure it created beings that kept a homeostasis. This method worked so well that they applied this to the normal planet based on Brainiac's recommendations. Too many scientists and not enough soldiers? Well, the next 1000 babies will be bread to be warriors. This is also a form of population control and all of the information is stored in the Growth Codex—a skull of the oldest living Kryptonian genetic ancestor.
General Dru-Zod's mental programming is a bit off. He and many others were implanted with a sense of rebellion because Brainiac was sort of bored and also thought an element of chaos needed to be in the society to keep things in check. He starts a civil war on the planet and in the process, activates the Black Zero weapon of mass destruction, which severely messes up the planet's core.
Zod is sent off to the Phantom Zone for his war crimes and Jor-El thinks the planet is doomed to self-collapse, but Brainiac keeps assuring the council that it's okay as it's already run the calculations and has determined that Krypton is a lost cause. Instead, it's manipulation the direction of the council—who are too stupid to realize it—so they focus their efforts on preserving Brainiac rather than themselves.
Jor-El hasn't trusted Brainiac in a long time. He rewired Kelex (his personal assistant offshoot of the Brainiac infrastructure) a long time ago and Kal-El is going to be a natural birth with no influence from Brainiac whatsoever.
At the zero hour where the destruction of the planet is imminent, Kal-El is sent on a spaceship (along with Kelex) to Earth. Brainiac saves itself. Krypton explodes and sends Kryptonite throughout the universe.
Kelex is eventually used to create the Fortress of Solitude, but it doesn't have the full memory banks of Krypton. This means Brainiac can come to Earth in a sequel, pretending to be a source of good for "The Last Son of Krypton" but it really turns out to be sinister.
All of your problems are solved and you've also set up a bad ass villain for a sequel. Zod's motivations change from trying to keep his race alive to being about how he was born with a lust for power and since he can't control Krypton, he'll go after Earth. You still have the Growth Codex, you still have the natural birth symbolism, and you still have the nanotechnology and everything else.
Core Problem #2: Replacement Characters
This is going to piggyback off the Brainiac situation in the previous problem, but take it to a new level. In the previous paragraphs, I was speaking about how using Brainiac would have been a way to include a popular character and implement him in spots that made it easier to explain what was going on. Basically, they missed out on using something cool which would simplify things.
But when we talk about how it would be better to use established characters instead of making up new ones, we can stretch this even further and apply it to other people in the movie.
Remember how stupid it was to have two mutated hulking animals be the villains in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze only for them to not be Bebop and Rocksteady? Were you disappointed to learn that Harry Osborn would turn into "New Goblin" instead of Hobgoblin or Green Goblin II in Spider-Man 3? Did you never quite understand why The Dark Knight has a big, burly white male cop and a Hispanic female cop, but they aren't Harvey Bullock and Renee Montoya? Wasn't it cool that at the beginning of Avengers: Age of Ultron they were taking down Baron von Strucker instead of a brand new character named something like General Smith?
The same thing happens in this film.
If you were to name the three most important people in The Daily Planet who are supporting characters in the Superman lore, wouldn't it be Lois Lane, Perry White and Jimmy Olsen, not Jenny Jurwich? Why was that character there instead of Jimmy Olsen? I would have been okay with it if Jenny died in the movie (to help up the stakes) and was replaced in the sequel with a young intern named Jimmy Olsen, but that wasn't the case, as Jenny didn't die. If they desperately wanted the Jimmy Olsen character to be a woman, why not just reinvent it as Jenny Olsen like we all speculated? It's not like reinventions can't work if done well. Look at how positive the reception has been for Carrie-Anne Moss being Jeryn Hogarth in Jessica Jones—nobody's bitching about that. Jenny Jurwich served no purpose in the movie at all other than to not be Jimmy Olsen in the Jimmy Olsen spot.
They felt that we needed to have a stern military leader who survives and another member of the military who dies in a self-sacrifice. Those were General Swanwick and Colonel Hardy. Wouldn't it have given Lois Lane more to do in the script and a stronger role if it were her father, General Sam Lane, who was in charge of overseeing the Superman situation? Change the actor, twist the dialogue in the scenes between Lois and General Swanwick (now General Lane) to reflect their father/daughter relationship, and there you go.
As far as Colonel Hardy goes, there are so many people from the comics he could have been. Ignoring someone like Nathaniel Adams (since he will be used as Captain Atom later, so you want to save him instead of killing him off here), these are just a few examples of characters that would have served as better replacements instead of Nathan Hardy: Phillip Hunter or Nicholas Hunter (or Benjamin Hunter), Sgt. Rock, Ted Gaynor, Steven Savage, Horace Canfield, Bulldozer Nichols, Gunner MacKay and there are so, so many more. In five minutes of looking through this DC Wikia page, I was able to come up with these names and only got to page 4 of 15. You mean to tell me the people working on this film couldn't put in the same work?
The worst thing here, though, is Carrie Farris. It's absolutely insane and beyond stupid to name a character something so incredibly similar to another character in the DCU! Everyone keeps thinking this is Carol Ferris, which means it creates confusion for no reason whatsoever. If she is Carol Ferris, then why is her name Carrie Farris? That's like having Batman be Bruce Bayne. If she's not Carol Ferris, then why isn't her name something else? Even if you didn't want to do the research to give her a name of someone from the comics (which is lazy) you still could have just called her Carrie Jones or Amanda Gunderson or whatever and you wouldn't have run into this problem.
It looks like in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, we're going to be having this same issue with Senator Finch. Holly Hunter could have been Elizabeth Alderman or Elizabeth Lawrence or plenty of other names.
Core Problem #3: Recasting
This one is much, much simpler to explain. Amy Adams is too old for Lois Lane in the 2013 Man of Steel. A few years beforehand, she could have been perfect, but even then, they should have died her hair. Lana's the redhead, Lois is the brunette. Does hair color destroy the interpretation of the character? No. But does spending $10 on a bottle of hair dye to go with the right look for the role hurt the budget of the film? If so, I would have sent them a check.
Christina Wren (Carol Ferris...I mean Carrie Farris) looks more like the character and she's closer in age to Henry Cavill. Why is Lois Lane 10 years older than Clark Kent? Some suggestions could have been Jessica Biel, Emily Blunt, Lauren Cohan, Olivia Wilde, Rachel Bilson, Odette Annable, Chyler Leigh, Sarah Shahi—again, I could go on and on with names.
If Amy Adams gave such a great, standout performance that I could ignore the age gap and the hair, that would be a different story, but she doesn't. There's absolutely nothing that she brings to the table that isn't replaceable.
I would have preferred someone younger than Michael Kelly being cast as Steve Lombard as well, for the record, just to clarify that this isn't an issue of ageism vs. gender roles.
Core Problem #4: Jonathan Kent
One of the core principles of the Superman character is that he has the power to be the most destructive force on the planet, if not the entire universe (or even the omniverse considering Superboy Prime somehow punched holes in fucking reality itself...) but because of how he was raised, he grew up to value life and not to be selfish. This is not just a genetic thing passed onto him from Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van (who in their own right, were heroic) as the nature of his familial legacy is strengthened by the nurture of his adoptive birth parents' tutelage. While Krypton is his true heritage and he comes from good stock, it is Jonathan and Martha Kent who raise him to be a good man.
Why, then, is Jonathan such a dick in this movie? He's not some horrible murderer or anything of the sort, but there are some choices in dialogue and actions that are seemingly deliberately made just to have mistakes in the movie. For example, when Clark saves everyone from the bus accident, Jonathan tells him that he can't do that as he needs to keep his powers a secret. That in itself is perfectly okay, but look at this exchange of dialogue:
Clark: What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?
Jonathan: Maybe, but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human...everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.
Hold on a second. Maybe? MAYBE? Maybe your son should have just let a bus load of children die to hold off on exposing his secret and scaring Pete's mom? I'm pretty sure despite Pete being a fat little turd, Pete's mom would rather be scared of what Clark did than mourn her son's death. The "maybe" causes so many problems because all of his scenes are about him wanting Clark to keep his secret, and it flat out implies that that's more important than human life, which is contradictory to what he should be teaching him. You can literally keep everything else in the whole scene exactly verbatim for what it is and just do one quick rewrite of the line where instead of "maybe" being the answer, Jonathan says "Of course not." When your son has the power to save lives, of course he should, but he should also be careful about how people will react to these extraordinary feats.
Later on, Jonathan's death scene comes up and it reinforces this notion that the secret is more important than saving people, because he would rather spend more time trying to help people out himself than to let Clark do it swiftly. He knows that he'll be safe, since nothing can hurt Clark, and by now, Clark should also know the difference between super speed and average running. Just by his youth and how much better shape he's in, Clark would be able to run faster than Jonathan and save people easier, so nobody would question it if he didn't go crazy with it. Even if he did go full-on Superman mode and exposed himself, wouldn't it be worth it to save all those people and the dog? Hell, at this point, Superman should be able to zip by and save Jonathan at the last second from the twister and people would just see a streak that he could blame on some kind of weird weather anomaly.
It was so much better when Jonathan's death was caused by a heart attack because that was something that Clark actually couldn't save him from, as opposed to something that he could have, but was told not to, since Jonathan had a death wish. A heart attack shows Clark that not all the answers in the universe revolve around being physically strong or fast and there's a vulnerability inside that needs to be protected. Superman would have no problem with tornadoes, but how is he going to save his dad from a heart attack? He can't, and that's why he dies—not because his foot got stuck in the car.
Core Problem #5: The Perception of Dark Destruction
Let me get this out of the way before we begin this section: I have no problem with the idea that Metropolis and Smallville were heavily damaged during the movie, nor do I have really much of an issue with Superman snapping Zod's neck.
The problem, I feel, is not in the idea itself, but in the repercussions from the audience's point of view. Similar to the Jonathan Kent scenario, too much was left on the table where the fans would have to draw certain conclusions on their own.
Immediately, people were reacting to this with hatred that Superman was a killer and didn't care about the deaths of thousands. That's not true. Superman doesn't want to kill Zod, but reaches a point where he sees no way out and that he must make that hard decision in order to protect the planet. Superman has killed before, such as when he killed Doomsday. Where it gets tricky is that Zack Snyder and company didn't set up the circumstances correctly to illustrate not only how Superman was backed into a corner, but that he wasn't equipped to handle the task in a better way.
Up until the final fight, Clark has really not been Superman. This is his first real test against an enemy rather than just saving people from accidents and putting out fires. He has no training in combat and he certainly has not seen destruction on such a grand scale. It's one thing to struggle to help save everyone from a collapsing oil rig where you just need to hold up some metal and tell people to get to a helicopter. It's an entirely different thing to fight superpowered and highly trained warmongering killer soldiers in hand-to-hand combat while stopping their giant planet-devouring machines AND to do so while protecting the civilians in the city...and to do it all singlehandedly.
There needed to be a more concerned effort in showing that Clark was overwhelmed and was trying to figure out how he could fix all of these problems at once. Maybe instead of focusing so much on the fights, there could have been a scene or two where he knowingly ignored the villains and didn't go for a really good punch because he rushed to save someone, which made him vulnerable to one of their attacks. In that scenario, he shows that his priority is the safety of everyone else, not himself, nor winning the fight. Remember the scene in The Avengers where Captain America tells the police that he and the others will take the fight to the Chitauri, but there are people on the streets that still need protection and the cops should be setting up a perimeter and so on? That illustrated that Cap was prioritizing the people while also working out battle strategy. He's more trained in that field, so of course he would be better at it than Superman, but the average moviegoer isn't thinking of that unless they're told. One quick scene where Superman tells the military that he doesn't know the best strategy of how to handle all of the threats and he needs their help while he puts himself out there as the target for Zod and company to attack could have done massive justice.
When it comes to killing Zod, why after all this destruction does it come down to Clark killing him to avoid hurting one family? Also, why does Zod's heat vision go in a straight line instead of just killing them if it's just his line of sight, considering how he could simply look at them and it would be the end? Let's ignore that plot hole and just go with the ticking time bomb scenario they set up. That one random family could have been an attempt to put the destruction under a microscope. It's one thing to see a building collapse and know that hundreds of people were killed, but it's another to watch each person die. If this was the filmmakers' attempt to put that into perspective and make us feel a more visceral reaction to the deaths that we could easily brush aside with the big sweeping destruction porn of the other scenes, it just wasn't executed properly. As far as if Superman had the right motivations in that scene, that's another whole issue. I think it would have made more sense if it were a family of a man, a woman, and their little boy where the father was standing in front of his wife and son, offering himself as a sacrifice to try to protect them. This would cause a flashback of remembrance for Clark to think back to his father and he would look at the situation where if he doesn't kill Zod, here's another family similar to his own where the boy will have to endure the pain of losing his father and the mother will have lost her husband. Since Clark couldn't save his father before, but he can save this boy's father (as well as everyone else out there), he has to make the tough call and end Zod.
To put an emphatic period at the end of all this, what really would have helped audiences swallow this destruction much easier is if Superman would have reacted to it more after the dust had settled. Yes, now that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is coming out, we know there's repercussions from Batman and Lex Luthor and the government, but we didn't get anything to indicate to that at the end of this movie. Instead, we had Superman acting cocky to the military about how he could totes kick their asses if he wanted to and they should just leave him alone. Instead of a slightly veiled threat of "dude, you've seen what I can do, and you should trust me or else" it should have been Clark feeling remorseful that he couldn't do a better job saving people and the military being the ones that give him a pep talk. They could cheer him up (to an extent) by telling him he did all he could do and he proved (to them at least) that he has Earth's best interests in mind, and they willingly are choosing to give him some freedom to recompense for their mistrust earlier.
Miscellaneous Extra Flaws & Nitpicking
Basically, those big problems above are the things that would have saved these movies and made them better as a whole, but there are smaller things that could have been changed as well. I'm obviously not going to nitpick every little detail, but a few things that stand out to me are as follows:
Pete Ross and IHOP – Pete Ross in general is poorly handled in this. I mentioned before that he's a fat loser and a bully, which is just weird to me to begin with. Whitney Fordman poses a better antagonist, although I would get on board with Pete being converted from a bully to a friend if he didn't turn out to just end up working at a goddamn IHOP. In the comics, Pete became the freaking President of the United States! He also married Lana Lang, who shows up in this movie bearing a resemblance to Kristin Kreuk's version of the character from Smallville rather than the red-haired Lana from the comics. I'm okay with this interpretation of Lana being the new standard as it promotes more diversity (but Lois should have had brown hair, not Lana's red hair, just to reiterate that point). Pete from Smallville was portrayed by a black actor, Sam Jones III. This version of Pete could have taken a similar route, or even stayed a Caucasian person and even an out of shape one if necessary, but why is he just working at IHOP? Why the product placement? That was ridiculous!
Krypton Exposition – This should have been tightened up as it just runs too long and that time could have been better spent filling in other gaps of the story. I'm sure if they wanted to, they could have rewritten it to cut down on a scene or two and combine them in some fashion.
Hallucinations – It seems as though we're getting another one of these "horrific nightmare" scenes in Batman v Superman and I don't know why Zack Snyder is such a fan of them. This whole stuff with the ship and the hallucination with the skulls was superfluous and unnecessary flair that ate up time.
Hamilton shouldn't have died – Keep this character around to be a primary scientist in researching things for S.T.A.R. Labs or even Lex Luthor's version of Doomsday if you're going that route. There's no need for him to have died whatsoever.
Fortress of Solitude – Speaking of destroying things that you could use for the future, why did you just get rid of Jor-El and the whole idea of the Fortress of Solitude? If you don't know if you can use something in the future, but it's a big part of the canon, leave it open ended. You don't need to come back to it, but you are writing yourself into a corner you need to explain harder later on if you want to bring it back. This is why I'm worried they'll cut corners and kill off Dick Grayson just to get rid of the problem of having too many Robins to deal with and they'll merge him together with Jason Todd. Now this means we're one movie into the DCEU and we can't have Jor-El and the Fortress of Solitude ever show up again unless there's some convoluted method that eats up more screen time that is introduced to explain why it could have a resurgence. And what impact did it have to destroy it? None. It was pointless.
The Dogs – Why isn't either of them named Shelby?
Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel – I hope that Clark using the pseudonym Joe while he was traveling the world was a reference to Joe Shuster, and I wish that his time on Deadliest Catch playing around in the ocean would have addressed him as Jerry to make it a double. Missed opportunity.
Stealing – Maybe if one of the criticisms of your movie could be that it's too dark and everyone's too cynical, don't show Superman stealing clothes and screwing up trucks just for revenge. The truck thing is played for a laugh and that's more excusable to me, but stealing the clothes wasn't something we needed to see, cause we would just fill in the gaps ourselves about how he got his clothes he was currently wearing. Now, instead of us making the judgment call ourselves on whether he just had extra clothes stashed somewhere or he purchased them or whatever, we know that he's a thief—probably because his dad had a conversation with him at some point that said if you're missing clothes, it's more important to get something on than to be nice to people, cause they should all die anyway.
Closet Scene – The dialogue in that scene where Clark hides in the closet at school is too sappy. If the world is too big, then make it small? Someone's trying too hard to be deep.
The Suit – Overall, I love the suit, but one change I would make that I think could have had a really nice reflection on the classic look is for the little blue sections around his waist to be red and for a more pronounced gold belt-like center to be placed in there. This wouldn't give him the red underwear and gaudy yellow belt, but it would resemble it more.
Well, there you have it—some insight into how I would have changed things in hindsight if DC magically gave me the ability to do so. This is the type of movie that has a ton of things that I absolutely love, like the first contact angle and "Welcome to the planet" and so forth, but some things that really just irk me so much that I can't love it and it makes me nervous for how things will go with the rest of the films coming up.
What do you think of the changes that I would have made?
