BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 2

[Greens]

Was it forced? It was part of the title of the movie. It was always going to be in it. You get to find out just how much Lex Luthor knows, which is then elaborated on when we find out he also knows who Superman and Batman are.

Yes, having three folders with logos on them (what?????) and playing neat 30 second clips of each hero is forced.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I'm not understanding what you are asking me.

I'm asking who Alfred is. What does he do? What's his role in Bruce's life? You said, roughly, you don't base your understanding or enjoyment of these movies as adaptations but as self contained stories. So who is Alfred, in BvS? Honest question

 

[Deserana]

So you thought Bruce's rant about if Superman has even a 1% chance of being evil then he needs to be killed was good writing?

Is this serious? I'm almost tempted to go back to the first TV spot where that line debuted and show the plethora of fanwank posts that praised that line of dialogue.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yup, a good film should be able to stand on it's own without prior research, it also shouldn't be focused on setting up a later film in a series.

One of the reasons Iron Man 2 and Avengers Age of Ultron were criticized more harshly than their previous films was because those films spent too much time trying to set up future films.

Bingo

 

[Poni_Boy]

The person in bed with Bruce?

Hey that's what I got out of it, to be honest. Maybe this Bruce Wayne is gay? That would, actually be kinda cool.

 

[gdw]

well I disagree that you need to research this movie before you watch it. So I'm confused as to why he said that

You absolutely don't need to.

It's amazing, I NEVER heard this level of criticisms of the easter eggs and set ups in films like Thor, and Captain America:The First Avenger, etc.
I mean, sure, Iron Man 2 AOU got a lot of criticism for being largely to set up the further installments, though I disagree with some of the AOU criticisms.

Marvel's films are FULL of unexplained elements and tie-ins that, if you're in the know, flush out the story, and if you're not, sometimes payoff later, sometimes they don't.

The delineation between TV and Film is all but gone (I'm not talking about cross platform universes, but story telling wise) and people praise it all the time, especially on the TV side.
But now BvS is getting ripped for every thing in it that could possibly be furthering a larger, on going plot.
God forbid they show anything indicating something ELSE might happen in a franchise we already know IS happening.

We love the crap out of that when they do in during a TV season.
That's something that really stood out with DD season 2 for me, vs season 1. While season 1 did begin laying the ground work for the Hand, and season 2, it was much more it's own complete story than the usual tv season. Which was great, don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with this in TV, and it's part of the vanishing delineation I was speaking of.
But season 2 started doing a lot more long form set up, I found, and we praise the **** out of it on TV, and print comic book story telling.

I LOVE that we are finally seeing this done more in film, and we're seeing it done better and better.
It's very much a new thing in the cinematic language. Yeah, there's always been sequel set ups in films, or following up on things that happened in earlier films, but they were always an after thought.

We have entered a new cinematic era in terms of how stories are told on the silver screen.
There are, will be, and have been, stumbling along the way, clumsy execution both due to learning, and rushing, *cough* Iron Man 2 *cough*.

But films like BvS, and even AoU are actually doing a pretty decent job with expanding, and including, this kind of, traditionally television based, storytelling.

This is not indicative of needing to research these elements before hand, same as you didn't need to research the Hand, Stick, or "Black Sky" (something not even from the books, but introduced in the same long term story telling way) to understand DD season 1.

These are things you (meaning the GA) are going to learn about by watching the movieS. That IS the research.

 

[Gianakin_]

You know things are bad when the majority of the people "just didn't get" a movie; and it's not even a Lars Von Trier movie or some crap, it's a CBM.

 

[Aquafinn90]

I'm asking who Alfred is. What does he do? What's his role in Bruce's life? You said, roughly, you don't base your understanding or enjoyment of these movies as adaptations but as self contained stories. So who is Alfred, in BvS? Honest question

He's Bruce's butler but also acts as his other half a team. His family has been serving the Wayne's for generations.

 

[Wylie Times]

Yes. When Batman learned that this "alien" has a mother, has a woman that loves him so much to come save him, to love a woman back so much that her safety is the key to the future is what woke Batman up to the fact that he is a man and he has experienced love and loss just like everyone else.

He also knows that if he ever went bad, he can stop him with the Krock. It's elementary.

So the worlds greatest detective, that was able to find out a way to kill said Alien, never actually bothered to look into the Alien's background?

Lex Luthor AND Lois Lane managed to find out where Clark grew up and where his mother lived but Batman couldn't?

 

[Aquafinn90]

Hey that's what I got out of it, to be honest. Maybe this Bruce Wayne is gay? That would, actually be kinda cool.

Oh I'd be all for that

 

[Poni_Boy]

He's Bruce's butler but also acts as his other half a team. His family has been serving the Wayne's for generations.

How do you know that? It's never once mentioned in the movie.

See what I'm saying about prior knowledge being crucial to understanding this story?

 

[Supernova]

How do you know that? It's never once mentioned in the movie.

See what I'm saying about prior knowledge being crucial to understanding this story?

If noone knows whos alfred is after all these movies then I really dont know what to say. Alfred is alfred except in this movie hes more involved with brices armor and weapons. Your really grasping at negative straws mate. Do we need an alfred origin story now for these new movies too? Lol

 

[matt47]

How do you know that? It's never once mentioned in the movie.

See what I'm saying about prior knowledge being crucial to understanding this story?

Actually, you would know he is some sort of servant/butler type character because he calls Bruce 'Sir" a few times and brings him food at the start of the movie. You see him at the Wayne's funeral so he must have been in the family for a long time.

 

[Poni_Boy]

If noone knows whos alfred is after all these movies then I really dont know what to say.

You can't say anything. They rebooted the Batman mythology with this movie so it's the filmmaker's job to explain crucial aspects of said mythology. You want people to watch Nolan or Burton's Batman movies to understand who Alfred is? That's ridiculous. Now YOU are making excuses for poor storytelling. C'mon pal

 

[Aquafinn90]

How do you know that? It's never once mentioned in the movie.

See what I'm saying about prior knowledge being crucial to understanding this story?

How do I know which part? It's clear he is a butler of sorts, as he's seen bringing Bruce food etc. But he's also seen fixing the bat mobile, fixing his tech equipment, piloting the Batwing.

As for his family serving the Waynes for generations it may not have been explicitly stated, but it was implied in the scene in the neglected Wayne Manor before Bruce suits up to fit Supes.

Have people complained about not knowing who Alfred is? This is certainly the first I'm hearing about it


Its a lose/lose situation apparently
Show the death of the Wayne's again(albeit in a short stylized sequence in the opening credits) and everyone cites this as a "flaw" since everyone knows how they die, yet this movie is also being criticized for not explaining every tiny thing, and now evidently not doing a good enough job of showing who Alfred is? And this is after the complaints of MOS being too exposition heavy.

 

[Wylie Times]

You absolutely don't need to.

It's amazing, I NEVER heard this level of criticisms of the easter eggs and set ups in films like Thor, and Captain America:The First Avenger, etc.
I mean, sure, Iron Man 2 AOU got a lot of criticism for being largely to set up the further installments, though I disagree with some of the AOU criticisms.

Marvel's films are FULL of unexplained elements and tie-ins that, if you're in the know, flush out the story, and if you're not, sometimes payoff later, sometimes they don't.

The delineation between TV and Film is all but gone (I'm not talking about cross platform universes, but story telling wise) and people praise it all the time, especially on the TV side.
But now BvS is getting ripped for every thing in it that could possibly be furthering a larger, on going plot.
God forbid they show anything indicating something ELSE might happen in a franchise we already know IS happening.

We love the crap out of that when they do in during a TV season.
That's something that really stood out with DD season 2 for me, vs season 1. While season 1 did begin laying the ground work for the Hand, and season 2, it was much more it's own complete story than the usual tv season. Which was great, don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with this in TV, and it's part of the vanishing delineation I was speaking of.
But season 2 started doing a lot more long form set up, I found, and we praise the **** out of it on TV, and print comic book story telling.

I LOVE that we are finally seeing this done more in film, and we're seeing it done better and better.
It's very much a new thing in the cinematic language. Yeah, there's always been sequel set ups in films, or following up on things that happened in earlier films, but they were always an after thought.

We have entered a new cinematic era in terms of how stories are told on the silver screen.
There are, will be, and have been, stumbling along the way, clumsy execution both due to learning, and rushing, *cough* Iron Man 2 *cough*.

But films like BvS, and even AoU are actually doing a pretty decent job with expanding, and including, this kind of, traditionally television based, storytelling.

This is not indicative of needing to research these elements before hand, same as you didn't need to research the Hand, Stick, or "Black Sky" (something not even from the books, but introduced in the same long term story telling way) to understand DD season 1.

These are things you (meaning the GA) are going to learn about by watching the movieS. That IS the research.

The difference is those things aren't poorly weaved into the main plot despite not being resolved or even mentioned by the end of the film.

Most of the easter eggs in marvel films are little name drops, text in the background on computer screens, or objects in the background.

In Iron Man 2 and Age of Ultron they dedicate entire scenes to things that aren't resolved in those films.

There's little to no difference between the Mystic Jacuzzi scene with Thor in Age of Ultron and the vision of the flash in Batman v Superman. Both scenes left audiences saying WTF and weren't necessary at all to the overall plot.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

So the worlds greatest detective, that was able to find out a way to kill said Alien, never actually bothered to look into the Alien's background?

Lex Luthor AND Lois Lane managed to find out where Clark grew up and where his mother lived but Batman couldn't?

Why was he looking for Kryptonite? He didn't care who Superman's alter ego is and likely didn't even assume he had one. What does that matter? If he's fighting Clark or Superman, it's the same person. If he can get to Superman and defeat him, what does knowing that he's Clark Kent have to do with anything?

You want Batman to kidnap Lois and Martha to get to Superman? That's breaking the character's MO. That's what villains do.

Yes, having three folders with logos on them (what?????) and playing neat 30 second clips of each hero is forced.

Wasn't to me. Maybe the logos were a bit much, but those clips were the easiest and cleanest way to show the audience what Lex knew in a movie.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Actually, you would know he is some sort of servant/butler type character because he calls Bruce 'Sir" a few times and brings him food at the start of the movie. You see him at the Wayne's funeral so he must have been in the family for a long time.

He could be a distant relative. He could be a sub. He could be a Wayne indentured servant. He could be a mechanic. He could be freaking anything. Who knows if they don't say so?

 

[Poni_Boy]

Have people complained about not knowing who Alfred is? This is certainly the first I'm hearing about it

One of my friends did. She thought Bruce and Alfred were lovers. And, no one could negate that based on what was shown/told in the movie. But that's only a minor example to the overarching issue with this "storytelling." BvS expects you to either A. Enjoy it for what it is and not try to make sense of it (ala Transformers), or B. Have preexisting knowledge of these characters and their stories to make it enjoyable.

 

[Wylie Times]

If noone knows whos alfred is after all these movies then I really dont know what to say. Alfred is alfred except in this movie hes more involved with brices armor and weapons. Your really grasping at negative straws mate. Do we need an alfred origin story now for these new movies too? Lol

You're kind of proving the point.

Batman v Superman isn't a sequel to all the previous Batman films.

It's like with the new James Bond films. In Skyfall they took to time to show you and explain who Moneypenny was despite the fact that she had appeared in numerous James Bonds films before. They didn't assume that anybody would just know who she is....

I should note this is also why I have no problem with their showing the Wayne's Murder again in Batman V Superman.

 

[Aquafinn90]

He could be a distant relative. He could be a sub. He could be a Wayne indentured servant. He could be a mechanic. He could be freaking anything. Who knows if they don't say so?

This is becoming absurd. Did there need to be a line where he said "I am Alfred, Butler to the Wayne's, whose family has been serving the Wayne's for generations" even though its shown exactly who he is and what his function is? THAT would be poor storytelling.

 

[gdw]

Is this serious? I'm almost tempted to go back to the first TV spot where that line debuted and show the plethora of fanwank posts that praised that line of dialogue.

Really? I've only ever heard criticism of that reasoning.

I didn't have a problem with it as dialogue, I had a problem with it as dialogue Bruce Wayne would say. Hell, even Affleck compared the "reasoning" to Dick Chenney's reasoning behind going to Iraq. That's far from a ringing endorsement, and shows how wrong Bruce was in this thinking.

Like I said, I didn't mind it as dialogue, but it was DEFINITELY out of character for the Batman we know.
That said, I think it worked in the film, especially with where it is placed, immediately AFTER he has the Knightmare, and mystery person tell him he was always right about "him."

Again, Bruce is wrong, and that's the point of his character arc in the film, that he has strayed so far from who he is, that no longer IS the Batman we know.
Same thing they tried to do with him killing. Still don't think that part was necessary to tell the story they did, mind you, and you could cut all of the "real world" bat-killing from the film, and it wouldn't have changed a thing.

 

[Poni_Boy]

There's little to no difference between the Mystic Jacuzzi scene with Thor in Age of Ultron and the vision of the flash in Batman v Superman. Both scenes left audiences saying WTF and weren't necessary at all to the overall plot.

None. At. All. Both were out of place, looked confusing, and had no place in the context of the story itself.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

This is becoming absurd. Did there need to be a line where he said "I am Alfred, Butler to the Wayne's, whose family has been serving the Wayne's for generations" even though its shown exactly who he is and what his function is? THAT would be poor storytelling.

It's been absurd for weeks.

 

[Poni_Boy]

This is becoming absurd. Did there need to be a line where he said "I am Alfred, Butler to the Wayne's, whose family has been serving the Wayne's for generations" even though its shown exactly who he is and what his function is? THAT would be poor storytelling.

I dunno. Lois was heavy handedly identified three times in MOS as a journalist. Three complete separate times. Only one actually fit into the context of the story. That's one extreme, Alfred is the other. There's a happy medium to be found. Snyder seems to be unaware of it in his storytelling manner.

Did you know this Alfred is a retired British spy? Apparently that's important to know but they only touch on it in paraphernalia related to but outside the movie itself. One line of dialogue couldn't fix that? Bad storytelling