You can compare the quality of the voice acting to the quality of the live action acting. For example, the voice acting of Mark Hamill is better than the live action acting of Megan Fox. It's not hard to compare different mediums, you just have to compare the relative quality.
Yes, you can. I can easily say that the Teen Titans cartoon is better than the Spawn live action movie. I can say that Leonardo Davinci's paintings are better than the Room by Tommy Wiseau. I can say that Michael Jackson's music is better than a Bratz animated movie by comparing the relative quality.
It seems to me there's plenty of "I don't want tos" and "I can'ts," as opposed to "It can't be done."
Good acting from Affleck and Godot, yes. Jesse Eisenberg was being Jesse Eisenberg and every other awkward character from Zombieland to Social Network once again. Cavill's acting is often sour as Superman. When the bomb goes off at the press conference, Clark doesn't look like someone distressed and dismayed and broken, he looks like he smelled a bad fart.
The plot of the movie is simple. Batman thinks Superman is a threat, and wants to kill him. So does the world. And if we were to get into plot holes? Oh boy.
Clark can hear Lois being thrown off of a building by Lex from the arctic and show up to catch her, and can hear Lois while she was in the desert at the start of the movie from halfway across the world, but can hear his own mother in Metropolis while he's in Metropolis?
Or how about the fact that when Clark first grabs the Kryptonite spear while underwater, it immobilized him and knocked him unconscious until Lois tossed the spear aside. Then, two seconds later, he grabs the spear and is able to fly at high speed towards Doomsday without the spear slowing him down at all.
Or how about when Superman saves Lois in the desert by flying the terrorist holding her hostage through two concrete walls at supersonic speeds, and then claims he hasn't killed anyone.
We can step into technical territory and criticize the grey-scale lack of color throughout the movie, the botchy editing, the bad CGI, especially with Doomsday, the overuse of slowmotion(do we need to see Bruce walk through a meadow for two whole minutes of slow motion?) and the slow pacing.
You had more fun. That doesn't mean it was more fun.
That is literally the exact same thing you said in this paragraph.
You didn't provide any evidence or any bases here, you hypocrite.
I also like how you avoided my question: What did BvS do that no other Marvel movie has done?
Voice acting =\= acting. Character movements, expressions and coreography are made and measured by way different criterias.
And no you cant compare CGI to drawn visuals as theyre completely different in both development and looks. Take a look at the process of making 2D and 3D animation and then come back.
All the actors were good. Cavill is better than he was in MoS and is a good Superman imo. Jesse was a different version of Lex and it worked perfectly. He was intimidating, unpredictable and cunning. A breath of fresh air for the character regardless of similar performancec in other movies.
The explosion scene was well done. Supermans response was fine. He was shocked to the point that he doubted himsrlf and ran away to North Pole. Just because he didnt cry with his eyes wide open doesnt mean he was oblivious to it.
He was despairing at the right times such as Zods death in MoS. Cavills performance as Superman was more than good.
And what you described was a dumbed down summary, a concept, rather than an actual synopsis. Even the deepest movies can be presented in such a simplified manner. Avengers?
"Loki attacks. Avengers stop him."
Deep. The movie had multiple plots such as tge nightmares, Darkseid pact, world accepting Superman accompanied by characters inner struggles, identity crisis and almost philosophical dialogue.
And none of those are plotholes. Just your poor comrehension. It isnt stated where Superman was at the beginning nor how he got there. He couldve simply been informed by the goverment, or could be passing by. Also, Supes hearing in CU was never world ranged. He took his time to notice drowning Louis who was pretty clise to him due to her being underground and underwater despite standing at a relatively close distance.
Him not being able to find his mother could be due to the fact that the room was well isolated and hidden away and due to the fact that Lex specifically said that hed kill her right away unless he goes to fight Bats.
The spear is also easily explained. Superman has showed the ablity to adapt to kryptonyte relatively fast. He recovered from the bullets Bats fired pretty soon albeit at the price of reduced strength. Still, he couldve simply endured the spear to the point where he pushed himself to the death which was evident since he couldnt even pierce Doomsday without sustaining a fatal injury.
Also its not stated that he killed the terrorist. All we saw was the devastating push. He flew him through a wall which while it would damage him crtitically didnt necessarily kill him.
The technicalities are the strongest part if this movie actually. The washed off greyish tone was perfect for the movies gloomy atmosphere and is Snyders trademark. CGI was impressive. All those collapsing buildings, Batmans armor and Doomsday? It was great. It looks to me like you dont know what a good CGI is.
And yes I do think the slow motion scene was a nice addition as it made for a mysterious dreamish atmosphere. I liked it quite a lot and dont think it was overused at all.
Pacing I will agree was a problem. One of the reasons why I gave it a 3.5/5.
And really dude? Me having fun doesnt say anything but you not having fun does? What is fun to one isnt fun to another. Its subjective so you can only speak for yourself. You cant say "its not fun" as if its a universal fact. It wasnt fun to YOU. It was to me. Period.
Me calling you out for not backing your statements up is equal to making empty statements? Lol ok.
And I find it funny how you accuse me of not answering a question that wasnt even directed to me. And this is coming from a guy who constantly ditches discussions with people under the farce of "loss of interest". Saying "HAHAHA" is such a good argument right? Right? But yea, Im the hypocrite here.
As for your completely irrelevant question DC has way more originality than Marvel. It introduced a gritty approach to the super hero genre with TDK triology which you yourself mentioned btw along with Watchmen. These 2 on their own are way bolder than anything Marvel brought out.
Theres also stuff like V for Vendeta. DC right there. Should I also mention the fact that Marvel constantly ripps DC off. Like that Punisher in your sig.
"You're one bad day away from being me."
Uuuh edgy, wonder where I heard that before. Oh yeah, Killing Joke. Thanos? I say Darkseid copy. Ciwil war? I say TDKR. Marvel stole way more stuff than DC its just ridiculous.
Speaking of new stuff, who was the first comic book super hero? Not spiderman thats for sure.
Marvel has nothing on DC originality wise
