Kal-El

But it looks cool.

Josh-da-man

Doesn't Zack Snyder shoot about 90% of his stuff with greenscreen, anyway? Almost every scene he's filmed has a weird artificial look to it whether it's 300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch, or his DCEU stuff.

fumanstan

I posted about it in the Civil War thread, but basically all of the Airport scene was green screen too

Michael Corvin

I don't think it's so much that it's all CG that gives it that look, it's the hyper-stylized sheen that tells your brain something's 'off.'

I didn't have a problem with the Doomsday fight, but that's because it was a barren locale with no buildings, vehicles or civilians in the mix.

HN

The problem with the doomsday fight was that it was like dark dark dark BRIGHT SHINING BLAST dark dark dark BRIGHT WHITE ENERY EXPLOSION dark dark etc...

Batfleck was cool tho

hanshotfirst1138

Between the cinematography and the rain, it was hard to tell what the hell was going on half the time.

hanshotfirst1138

I'm pretty sure that 300 was all green-screen. I don't know how much of his later films were or weren't, but I think that even though he shoots on 35mm, he processes the hell out of his shot in post. That'd certainly be my guess on the basis of how they look.

stingermck

But it was during the day and the action was easy to follow.

Solid Snake

Almost. There were some sets like that freaky orgy one . I don't think there was a green/blue screen in that one. But it was minimal sets and a lot of extension. So eveyrthing outside was CGI pretty much aside from what they were standing on.

But that's the difference. The Russo's tried to make it look real. To fit in w/ the world they have to play in along w/ what actors are literally there for this or that. Blending the false to fit in well w/ the physical. I can tell some shots are CGI or CGI extensions just by principle on the nature OF the shot in a realistic manner where it technically COULD be a real shot but wouldn't be based on how the films are made. But again... we get so much physical in there too. We get characters being characters in the moment. Damn near everything Webhead was CGI in there but I feel connected to him because he's acting real and moving to what I think a real Spider-Man would move based on a shit ton of years for reference. I can tell he's CGI but in my mind I can pass it cuz it's an actual character being true to itself. Rhodey, Stark, and others are always given a presence to not take you out of the moment. Snyder doesn't do that. He's very strict/rigid in how he does it. He goes TOO far in how much his CGI characters go. To the point where it just feels like animation. It doesn't feel real. Too loose at times. Cap 3 had such moments too but they're few compared to BvS. T'Challa's spinning kick thing was a bit too much for me cuz he moved weird in it but it's still not as loose as stuff in BvS.

There's a way to make your digital environment play real w/ what physical elements you have... and Snyder has gone way off the goddamn ranch on that part. He was fine w/ it in Watchmen. It actually looks great there cuz of how extreme natured that film is.

Add in.. he's processing it to the point where it just becomes too false of an image. There's so much shit going on in layers in his stuff that we're really just watching a guy in front of a screen.

Marvel does the same thing but they're not pulling the audience away from the characters. We feel that they're there cuz we're still never losing a character presence.

Also.. Doomsday was shit. Oh... wow. So WW, Supes, and Bats are interacting with something not really there. That's boring. You got to connect your audience to the real world. Not just create "cool" shots cuz cool shots are badass.

Double_Oh_7

Well, I guess that's all that matters. As long as it looks cool it doesn't have to make sense

Kal-El

That's Snyder's philosophy with regards to these films.

You obviously haven't read any of my recent posts re: Suck Snyder and his DCEU. Check your sarcasm detector.

hanshotfirst1138

Welcome to 2016. Enjoy your stay.

B5Erik

I was really disappointed when I started reading the details about BVS, so much so that (given the ridiculous last 45 minutes of MOS) I skipped it.

Now I just don't care. Snyder and WB drained the give a shit out of me regarding the DC Cinematic Universe.

Mike86

Even if it was the airport scene seemed much more realistic to me than any of the fights in Batman V Superman. The whole film has this odd, artificial feel to it (almost like a video game or something).

Mike86

Frankly I agree. There was a point when if a comic book film was coming out I was there opening day no matter what. With these DC films though I'm going to be more choosy with what I go to see. I'll likely see most of them at some point but may end up waiting for them to hit a premium channel or something. I'm just not that excited about their films at this point.

TheMovieman

Jesse Eisenberg will be back as Lex Luthor in Justice League

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/j...luthor-8076462

Mike86

Oh how exciting one of the worst parts of Batman V Superman is back for more..

Solid Snake

I don't think he's to blame for how they wanted the character to go. He's actually a good actor. Just the characterization of the character didn't work out.

Mike86

I've never been particularly fond of him as an actor. For everything decent he's done there's something else he's done that's shitty. I never saw him as a great choice for Luthor and even if he was under Darkseid's influence or something and that's why he was acting how he was I'm still not terribly excited to see more of him. Plus Luthor is one of the most overused villains of all time.

Decker

What does that even mean? And is the "He" pronoun referring to Affleck or Eisenberg?

Solid Snake

I don't think he's the actor most would have gone w/ Lex Luthor. Cuz... Lex Luthor is more well known (thankfully) to be a very charismatic, powerful, and intelligent to the point of dangerous w/ his resources.

The general actions Lex does isn't bad. If it was a different type of Luthor.. that could have gone better. But.. the way they made him be about it... wasn't the way that made Lex memorable at all. Made him very generic and unmemorable.

I think that no matter what... Eisenberg isn't who you cast as Luthor. He's still a boy compared to how Lex is more well known to be today. A man that can even phase you by standing there w/ you. He's got to have a physical nature to him in the way he does and say things. Eisenberg just doesn't match up to what Lex is. No matter how you do it w/ him.

Yes, Luthor is overplayed. WAY overplayed. If they had done a Luthor like we like him in the modern... I would have been okay w/ that. But we didn't. We got another quirky eccentric Lex.

fumanstan

I never liked Eisenberg for the role, but I find him decent enough in a few roles that they could have made it work had they gone a different direction with him.

I hope whatever role he has is minimal.

Brack

It would be nice to see a Lex like in DC animated series/movies. Not sure what prompted the casting of Eisenberg.

Solid Snake

I'm guessing they wanted a younger guy Lex for some reason.

Like... Eisenberg isn't intimidating even by his actions that are threatening. Modern Lex was an intimidating man even when Wayne or Kent were around, suit or no suit. He was a man w/ power but also a man. He wasn't a boy which no matter what Eisenberg's age is.. he's still a kid pretty much by what he does and is characterized as.

Brack

His Zuckerberg was more intimidating. He should have just channeled that character.