BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - Part 302

[PQX12]

You seem to be of the position all stories and characters must start at or near their genesis phase in order to be adequately developed or accepted. And again I'll have to disagree.

IW's only advantage is familiarity. It's a big and important one, but it doesn't preclude it from the same potential pitfalls a film without it has.

Backstories are nice to have, but they've never been an important component of most ensemble pieces out there.

No, backstories are important because they make the characters have a depth and also make it easier to care about them.

BvS problem was that a lot of people were confused about the random characters that were appearing randomly and they didn't understand why they should care about them.

 

[Jekecy]

No, backstories are important because they make the characters have a depth and also make it easier to care about them.

And once again it is still not required to make an ensemble piece work. I'm not disputing it adds to the material, I'm refuting the complete dismissal of a team piece which doesn't hinge on established explored histories.

BvS problem was that a lot of people were confused about the random characters that were appearing randomly and they didn't understand why they should care about them.

Then that's an issue of execution, not the concept.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

And once again it is still not required to make an ensemble piece work. I'm not disputing it adds to the material, I'm refuting the complete dismissal of a team piece which doesn't hinge on established explored histories.


Then that's an issue of execution, not the concept.

Yeah, it amazes me how so many people fail to see that it's not about how many characters there are in a film, but how the film is executed, that matters, if the too many characters complaint had any weight to it, then a good X-men film would be an impossibility, not to mention the countless other ensemble films out there, also, just because a character is in a film, doesn't mean they have to have a big role.

 

[PQX12]

And once again it is still not required to make an ensemble piece work. I'm not disputing it adds to the material, I'm refuting the complete dismissal of a team piece which doesn't hinge on established explored histories.

It will work if it was a small team and they work with each other.

Besides, having the first batman movie be a big one and include so many characters soon after BvS and JL is asking for a disaster.

Then that's an issue of execution, not the concept.

No, the problem was the concept because they should have focused only on batman and superman and hinted at the others instead of making them appear.

 

[PQX12]

Yeah, it amazes me how so many people fail to see that it's not about how many characters there are in a film, but how the film is executed, that matters, if the too many characters complaint had any weight to it, then a good X-men film would be an impossibility, not to mention the countless other ensemble films out there, also, just because a character is in a film, doesn't mean they have to have a big role.

X men is a team movie while batman is a solo movie. You can't simply compare the two.

 

[Jekecy]

It will work if it was a small team and they work with each other.

Besides, having the first batman movie be a big one and include so many characters soon after BvS and JL is asking for a disaster.

Any time you add more cogs to the story and deviate further away from simple mechanics, you delve closer to a disaster. In capable hands (like I believe Ben's to be), I welcome the challenge in opting for that route. As I've said before it absolutely opens itself up to a whole slew of issues (as with anything that's massive). But if it can work, it will reap far more benefits than if it had succeeded with a safe bet.

No, the problem was the concept because they should have focused only on batman and superman and hinted at the others instead of making them appear.

We can go back and forth on this all day long, I'm just not going to agree it's an issue inherent to the concept. There are unlimited ways to tackle an idea, in BvS it was one that didn't play out very well to the masses. Fine.

Many here hold the animated World's Finest as a supreme example of such a match-up. Even without their respective series serving as a precursor backdrop, the film still holds its own as an exclusive story. Same deal with the MCU's Avengers. Origins and histories are great as ancillary pieces, but never necessary with ensembles. I'll stand firm on that.

 

[AndrewOz]

Superman doesn't need many lines to get his point across. Lines like that humanizes him. I guess the difference is I am willing to accept that someone can emotionally break Superman. I will admit though that I started to care more about Superman because of the last 2 movies, the fact he is confused about what he is supposed to be, makes him feel more relatable to me. And when he does makes a decision amidst all the confusion to save the world provides a more emotional impact.

Lines like that humanise him as a sad, pathetic representation of the feeble, pessimistic self-pitying aspect of humanity.
Snyder is projecting his own world view onto Superman. He's turning Superman into his emotional, philosophical autobiography.
The vast majority of the world are not resonating to this. It's good that you do, but for the DCEU to survive, it needs to resonate with the majority, not the minority.
To me, he didn't make decision to save the world, he wanted to save Lois. Because of that self pitying self absorbed character, built up over 2movies, I saw a man who didn't sacrifice himself for the world but martyred himself in the ultimate act of self pity-an attention seeking suicide in front of his family (Lois).
A lesson he learned from Jonathon in MoS.

I saw a man tired of being constantly let down by the world (reinforced in the movie by lines from Lois in the tub, Martha and especially ghost-dad (really? They're ripping off Hamlet now?)), that takes himself out in a petulant "so there!" act, designed to make the world feel bad and finally appreciate him when he's gone. Except we know he isn't at the very end.
What I saw was the most self indulgent fantasy of a sad, suicide-faking victim of deep depression.
There is nothing heroic in martyrdom.
This portrayal is the absolute antithesis of the Death of Superman. There, he was the only thing left to oppose Doomsday. It was the definition of noble sacrifice
He did it bare handed as well, which would have been much better cinematically than the recreation of the climax of 1981's Excalibur that we actually got.

A healthy, heroic psyche focused on outcomes instead of self indulgence would have simply given the spear to Wonder Woman.
As almost everyone has noted.
There were any number of ways to have concluded that battle to make Superman look like a noble self-sacrificing hero instead of a dull witted child badly in need of an extended stay at Open Sky.

The fact that we got it presented to us in the way that we did speaks volumes about why this movie failed to resonate and why the DCEU is in terrible danger of imploding before it even gets started.
We'll have to wait for JL to see if it can be saved from here.

 

[DerekLake]

Lines like that humanise him as a sad, pathetic representation of the feeble, pessimistic self-pitying aspect of humanity.
Snyder is projecting his own world view onto Superman. He's turning Superman into his emotional, philosophical autobiography.
The vast majority of the world are not resonating to this. It's good that you do, but for the DCEU to survive, it needs to resonate with the majority, not the minority.
To me, he didn't make decision to save the world, he wanted to save Lois. Because of that self pitying self absorbed character, built up over 2movies, I saw a man who didn't sacrifice himself for the world but martyred himself in the ultimate act of self pity-an attention seeking suicide in front of his family (Lois).
A lesson he learned from Jonathon in MoS.

I saw a man tired of being constantly let down by the world (reinforced in the movie by lines from Lois in the tub, Martha and especially ghost-dad (really? They're ripping off Hamlet now?)), that takes himself out in a petulant "so there!" act, designed to make the world feel bad and finally appreciate him when he's gone. Except we know he isn't at the very end.
What I saw was the most self indulgent fantasy of a sad, suicide-faking victim of deep depression.
There is nothing heroic in martyrdom.
This portrayal is the absolute antithesis of the Death of Superman. There, he was the only thing left to oppose Doomsday. It was the definition of noble sacrifice
He did it bare handed as well, which would have been much better cinematically than the recreation of the climax of 1981's Excalibur that we actually got.

A healthy, heroic psyche focused on outcomes instead of self indulgence would have simply given the spear to Wonder Woman.
As almost everyone has noted.
There were any number of ways to have concluded that battle to make Superman look like a noble self-sacrificing hero instead of a dull witted child badly in need of an extended stay at Open Sky.

The fact that we got it presented to us in the way that we did speaks volumes about why this movie failed to resonate and why the DCEU is in terrible danger of imploding before it even gets started.
We'll have to wait for JL to see if it can be saved from here.

I agree with your perceptions of Superman's sacrifice. The fact that his two previous statements are, "No one stays good in this world," and [to Lois], "You are my world," demonstrate a man who resolves that the only good act he CAN do is to sacrifice himself. And even worse, the semi-hopeful ending tells us that Superman can only exist in our world as a dead inspiration rather than a living beacon of hope. That he's more effective in death than he is in life. That the only way that Superman can exist in our controversial, complicated, morally-grey world is for him to exist as an abstract, inspiring ideal for the darker, cooler character of Batman.


Terrio did confirm that he looked at the structure of revenge tragedies, while Ben Affleck did compare Bruce Wayne to Hamlet. So, yeah, BvS tried to rip off Hamlet and Excalibur, rather than telling a story based on Batman and Superman.

 

[Spideyfan117]

I'm posting this in here because I need to vent, but the "no one stays good in this world" line actually gob smacked me. It's the worst line ever uttered by Superman in any medium. It's literally anti-superman. I still can't believe someone thought that line was okay.

Not to mention superman is fricken mute in this movie. Cavill didn't have a lot to work with in MOS either, but superman is a cinder block in this movie. The fact that he only has 43 lines of dialogue, it's just insane to me. To think this movie was supposed to be a sequel to MOS.

Yeah. This Superman is apparently a pessimist instead of an optimist like the classic, beloved version(s) of the character.

 

[AndrewOz]

I agree with your perceptions of Superman's sacrifice. The fact that his two previous statements are, "No one stays good in this world," and [to Lois], "You are my world," demonstrate a man who resolves that the only good act he CAN do is to sacrifice himself. And even worse, the semi-hopeful ending tells us that Superman can only exist in our world as a dead inspiration rather than a living beacon of hope. That he's more effective in death than he is in life. That the only way that Superman can exist in our controversial, complicated, morally-grey world is for him to exist as an abstract, inspiring ideal for the darker, cooler character of Batman.


Terrio did confirm that he looked at the structure of revenge tragedies, while Ben Affleck did compare Bruce Wayne to Hamlet. So, yeah, BvS tried to rip off Hamlet and Excalibur, rather than telling a story based on Batman and Superman.

Apart from all the comic book arcs that are visually referenced but contextually ignored, they are clearly ripping off Hamlet, Excalibur, Dracula and Citizen Kane, just to name a few.
I was half expecting Ghost Dad to say 'Lex made the twister with a weather controlling satellite son. Avenge me'.
Or, at that point in the movie, it might make more sense to show that Lex has an Apokolyptian hallucination ray, and have him say it was a Wayne tech Satellite, then beam this in for good measure:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...To0ATOykfBL1ON9TgVoghfADDWdpKSSD8ivYw_mMG0Lir

I believe Snyder is projecting himself onto Superman, so using your logic above, is there hope for a new JL director soon? Naah, that's just going too far, even form me.

 

[Charlatan]

James Wan ‏@creepypuppet 6m6 minutes ago

 

[AndrewOz]

Yeah. This Superman is apparently a pessimist instead of an optimist like the classic, beloved version(s) of the character.

I don't think pessimist covers it.
I read a review of MoS recently written by a woman who said she knows nothing about comics, but presented some compelling arguments that she thought Jonathon Kent was clinically depressed. It's hard to disagree if you want to explain his otherwise idiotic suicide.
I think those arguments apply even more strongly to Clark, given the greater evidence provided by BvS.
Do we think these movies might just be Zack's version of a cry for help?

 

[Serpico Jones]

Devin Faraci is a terrible reporter.

 

[Marvel Knight]

A wasted opportunity is Superman not facing his demons for crossing the line and killing Zod. There was potential there. Especially with a resurrected Zod.

Reminds me of Agents of Shield. Coulson crossed the line and killed Ward.
https://youtu.be/JdlGx5z5dlE?t=55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_EAatUxbYk

And then Ward is ressurected as HIVE, and Coulson now has to face his demons for killing him;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deP179UU6Kc

 

[Val_Zod]

Could you imagine if we had gotten the bright and more cheerful Superman, and Batman was still depicted just as dark and broken? You'd have a stronger contrast, but maaaaan Batman would've been even more unlikable for spending most of the film wanting to murder that Superman.

I think this movie was doomed from the get go. I keep thinking of ways they could've fixed the characterizations to please more fans within the general framework of the movie, but I keep coming back to it probably should've not even been a VS. film to set up the world.

Some would know I was part of the optimistic camp concerning this film, but ultimately, I think that is the issue, and something that always bothered me in the back of my head. Forget the deviations from the comics, editing job and tone, the biggest problem with this film was its inability to deliver strong motivations for Batman and Superman to fight. Sure Batman and Superman could be a little skeptical with eachother, but trying to sell that kind of premise and have us feel emotionally satisfied at the end with them making up, you'd just end up feeling like this whole thing was just one big waste of time and could have been settled with them talking it out. There's no sense of build up to their confrontation in the film and it makes you think why they even bothered with the whole fight.

 

[Flint Marko]

Devin Faraci is a terrible reporter.

In his meager defense, he did only report that Wan had apprehensions.

 

[AndrewOz]

No, backstories are important because they make the characters have a depth and also make it easier to care about them.

BvS problem was that a lot of people were confused about the random characters that were appearing randomly and they didn't understand why they should care about them.

Most ensemble pieces outside CBM's don't do elaborate origin stories for the main characters.
They establish meaning and rapport within the actual movie, while occasionally referencing a key bit of history if it advances the plot.
Oceans 11 was not preceded by 10 origin stories.
Usual Suspects? Se7en?
I could keep going.
Yes, it helps, but a good stand-alone tale doesn't need it.
They don't begin every Justice league story arc with a complete retelling of the origins either, just in case this is someone's first comic book.

 

[AndrewOz]

Some would know I was part of the optimistic camp concerning this film, but ultimately, I think that is the issue, and something that always bothered me in the back of my head. Forget the deviations from the comics, editing job and tone, the biggest problem with this film was its inability to deliver strong motivations for Batman and Superman to fight. Sure Batman and Superman could be a little skeptical with eachother, but trying to sell that kind of premise and have us feel emotionally satisfied at the end with them making up, you'd just end up feeling like this whole thing was just one big waste of time and could have been settled with them talking it out. There's no sense of build up to their confrontation in the film and it makes you think why they even bothered with the whole fight.

I was optimistic also, but I have to disagree that there was no sense of build-up, there was a massive amount of build-up, just no (common) sense within it.
They spent almost 2hrs setting it up and trying to justify it.
What made no sense is post Martha, they just forgot about their valid (within the movie) concerns. Both of them.

 

[DerekLake]

I was optimistic also, but I have to disagree that there was no sense of build-up, there was a massive amount of build-up, just no (common) sense within it.
They spent almost 2hrs setting it up and trying to justify it.
What made no sense is post Martha, they just forgot about their valid (within the movie) concerns. Both of them.

I think their issues with the other were valid and here's where I think BvS missed another big opportunity: while Superman's issues with Batman could have been resolved with Batman's redemption (and Clark's understanding of Bruce's traumatic history), Batman's issues with Superman could have been resolved by the concept of the Justice League itself. Batman's fears Superman's power? What better way to keep that in check than by an institution of people gathered from across the world?

 

[AndrewOz]

I think their: while Superman's issues with Batman could have been resolved with Batman's redemption (and Clark's understanding of Bruce's traumatic history), Batman's issues with Superman could have been resolved by the concept of the Justice League itself. Batman's fears Superman's power? What better way to keep that in check than by an institution of people gathered from across the world?

I agree, but I feel the movie completely failed to develop a plausible basis for that understanding, because it was all done in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. So much lost opportunity and poor character development.
Maybe when Superman is resurrected, Batman will mention that. Except "Martha" apparently made all the fear go away already.
Superman has not spent any time getting to know Batman. It's one thing to notice the guy has serious mental problems and seems to have a moment of clarity, but what is the basis for Superman to believe he's suddenl cured?
Context.
Remember, these aren't men who've ever known each other before in this Universe.
So, after demonstrating that he's deeply disturbed, potentially murderous and capable of moments of clarity, what is the basis for a forgiving Superman to send him off to rescue Martha, instead of taking him home and making sure that he got the treatment he needs?
If we accept that Batman is "Fallen", that he's been suffering from PTSD for years, is the movie saying the permanent cure for PSTD is an epiphany-like moment of clarity?
If PTSD is the justification for Batman's demonstrated moments of murderous psychosis, then he could go off again at any moment. He's a danger to himself and others, which was the whole point of Supermans issues with him in the first place. If he's gone from punitive to empathetic, it does not invalidate the basis for the original concern.

Here's my litmus test for realism:
under those circumstances, would you trust Batman to rescue Martha, knowing only what the movie contains?
I wouldn't.

 

[matt47]

I'm uploading the first 40 mins of my fan edit. Some of the scene transitions came out a little shotty while uploading it. Looks like it'll take a while but yeah I'll send anyone a link if they want it.

 

[Micromind]

In his meager defense, he did only report that Wan had apprehensions.

He cannot play innocent when he is not and claim to be a victim at the same time.

 

[jmc]

I'm uploading the first 40 mins of my fan edit. Some of the scene transitions came out a little shotty while uploading it. Looks like it'll take a while but yeah I'll send anyone a link if they want it.

Is it on Youtube?

 

[matt47]

Is it on Youtube?

Na it'd get blocked on yt.
I was doing a file drop but it was taken ages so I'll find another site. Probably torrent.

Good ol Australia Internet...

 

[smallville fan]

Don't know if the was discussed but if in some scenario, Ben Affleck takes over from Zack Snyder for good moving forward, I'd like to see a Ben Affleck Director's Cut of BvS from the 4 hour film they have.