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

[souperman]

great post.

the Superman in MOS and BvS may not be my ideal version of Superman, but I enjoyed both movies and am willing to see what they do with him in JL.

I also certainly wouldn't mind if they decided to reboot the whole DC film universe in favor of more "traditional" versions of the characters.

so, I'll be happy either way......lol.

Thanks.

I would not mind seeing "alternate" versions and other "non MOS related" stories. I know the business end of it finds it hard to do this at the same time in fear of ruining their franchise but maybe Disney's take on SW with all the spin off stories will inspire something.? Even a well made HBO or Showtime mini series with different characterizations. I wouldn't mind seeing Burton's Superman Lives made as a CG animated film.

 

[The Joker]

IMO, being Superman never really seemed like a choice to me.

He got the costume and did nothing with it until Zod came and outed him. Everything after that was reactionary.

In BvS, he performed heroic acts, but it never really seemed like he wanted to do it. He seemed annoyed with having to constantly save people.

Just my perception, of course.

Sounds accurate to me.

 

[Sleiek]

So as not to get into a circular convo about production quality or editing issues etc, this reply is only about my observations of the portrayal of the character.

Spoiler

Superman, in this rendition at least, IS a babe in the woods. He is a young man who has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal man...yet he has been taught by his parents to hide them and only has used them in times of great peril to save people from certain death. In MOS, after he saves people, he moves on so as not to be discovered. He IS conflicted about HOW or IF he should be using his powers at all based on his fathers wishes and warnings. By hiding his abilities we should also consider that Clark's motive may also be protecting his Mother, realizing that her life would be drastically changed if the world found him out.

These films view Superman as a being that has been orphaned on Earth and knows nothing about his background and is searching for answers. He was not sent here as SUPERMAN. He was sent here as a baby by his parents to survive and maybe one day re-establish the Kryptonian race (but that's another story). He was not sent to Earth as the savior of mankind. The people of Earth made him that after seeing his abilities. That is why he is "uncomfortable" with this notion.

He was not born to be SUPERMAN. He was born to be Kal-El, a Kryptonian boy. Superman is a character he plays for the people of Earth to be able to use his powers in a manner that protects his identity. (and his Mothers).
As a moral and ethical being, in both MOS and BvS it is not out of place for him to have questioned his place in this world and the reaction of humans to him and wonder if he is doing the right thing. He is a reluctant hero, wanting to help but not comfortable with the "misplaced" worship.

This is what I feel is the "realistic" portrayal. Not one that simply has Clark become SUPERMAN all of a sudden, all smiles and happy to be using his super-poweres to save cats.

Although great fun, STM, the first Donner film had an interesting conflict. Jor-El educates Kal in the void for 11 years, teaching him all about Earth and Mankind and warns him; "It is FORBIDEN to interfere in human history"...

He then proceeds to give him a colorful suit and he goes out as SUPERMAN to introduce himself to the world as a superhero. Not very humbly I may add and a bit hypocritical. He has Lois interview him so the world knows he is here. Standing akimbo "I'm here to save you !" YEA! This is a great comic book introduction of a superhero to get the ball rolling and see a lot of cool stuff but hardly a realistic approach to how people really act and react.

I think in JL, we will see a different Superman, maybe this Superman. One that understands better the nature of people and one that accepts his role as a leader and save people "happily" knowing that he has found his place in the world.

PS:
You guys that are taunting people about "proving" or substantiating their "feelings" gotta lay off. It really is unfair. You can not prove to someone else why you felt something. It is subjective. It IS emotional. So why don't all you frustrated pseudo intellectual Mr. Spocks out there quit acting all high and mighty and denigrating others "feelings" because you don't "feel" the same way.

Absolutely a great post. This is exactly the reason why I find Cavill's Superman very interesting. I am really enjoying the different phases of his life journey. I feel like I know and relate more to Cavill's Superman than Reeve's Superman. I really empathize with Cavill's Superman.

 

[Lily Adler]

I'm still of the opinion that they should have eliminated the Zod battle sequence, use that time to give us more character moments with Lois and Clark (establishing his compassion for living things, developing his secret identity, his interest in jouranlism and the no kill rule), have a short rescue sequence of Clark revealing himself as Superman to the public, have Zod escape the Phantom Zone hole and immediately use his new found strength to a very brief fight to the Metropolis terminal (minus most of the collateral damage, just have Zod and Supes fight in the crater of the World Engine, space, and then to the Metropolis train station) where he kills Zod trying to protect the family. But I know some here disagree.

 

[javonstokess]

I'm still of the opinion that they should have eliminated the Zod battle sequence, use that time to give us more character moments with Lois and Clark (establishing his compassion for living things, developing his secret identity, his interest in jouranlism and the no kill rule), have a short rescue sequence of Clark revealing himself as Superman to the public, have Zod escape the Phantom Zone hole and immediately use his new found strength to a very brief fight to the Metropolis terminal (minus most of the collateral damage, just have Zod and Supes fight in the crater of the World Engine, space, and then to the Metropolis train station) where he kills Zod trying to protect the family. But I know some here disagree.

Honestly, If it were up to me, I would have cut out all the Batman stuff. I'd have made Luthor more like the animated series version and have the main physical threat be Metallo (the man who lost his legs).

There's some good ideas in the movie they just aren't well executed. I actually like the discussions surrounding how Superman relates to the world. I would have just preferred Superman be more "Superman-like". This stoic, silent "alien" version of Superman is to "Batman-ish" for my like. There's nothing really distinctive between the two.

 

[Lily Adler]

I was talking about Man of Steel, but yes. I would have done a straight sequel with all the focus on Superman and his cast. Batman will be "Wonder Woman'd". No retelling of his origin, no I want to kill Superman cause he can wipe out humanity. He appears to help Superman to stop Lex.

 

[Boom]

I feel like this movie would have been better served as a full-fledged MoS sequel with Batman in more of a supporting role, there to serve Superman's development as a character. Cut Wonder Woman altogether and leave her introduction for her solo film.

I've decided that I'm simply not interesting in Batman and Superman having a physical altercation, so long as they are in full possession of their own faculties.

I like the idea of an older Batman that is tired and disillusioned, but I wouldn't have taken it to extent that they have where he becomes more violent and paranoid. Have him on the brink of the precipice rather than already plunged into it. That way when Superman pulls him back, it's not such a huge leap as we see in this film.

So yeah. less BvS and more World's Finest, but framed through a Superman-centric story.

 

[javonstokess]

I was talking about Man of Steel, but yes. I would have done a straight sequel with all the focus on Superman and his cast. Batman will be "Wonder Woman'd". No retelling of his origin, no I want to kill Superman cause he can wipe out humanity. He appears to help Superman to stop Lex.

I wouldn't even have Batman in the movie.

I actually don't have a problem with Superman killing Zod to save that family. My issue is it should have been the springboard for him to learn that there has to be another way then killing...but no, he immediately comes out in the next movie and drives a normal human being through like 3 walls.

 

[souperman]

I'm still of the opinion that they should have eliminated the Zod battle sequence, use that time to give us more character moments with Lois and Clark (establishing his compassion for living things, developing his secret identity, his interest in jouranlism and the no kill rule), have a short rescue sequence of Clark revealing himself as Superman to the public, have Zod escape the Phantom Zone hole and immediately use his new found strength to a very brief fight to the Metropolis terminal (minus most of the collateral damage, just have Zod and Supes fight in the crater of the World Engine, space, and then to the Metropolis train station) where he kills Zod trying to protect the family. But I know some here disagree.

Lois and Clark and Smallville examined the relationship dynamic at great length as well as STM and S2. One possible reason for not doing this in MOS and BvS may be that the film makers felt that these things have been done and shown before and wanted to do something different. They did spend "some time" on the relationship, there are quite a few scenes together,- not as a full blown love story but at least we can see the love between them.

 

[Lily Adler]

I feel like this movie would have been better served as a full-fledged MoS sequel with Batman in more of a supporting role there to serve Superman's development as a character. Cut Wonder Woman altogether and leave her introduction for her solo film.

I've decided that I'm simply not interesting in Batman and Superman having a physical altercation, so long as they are in full possession of their own faculties.

I like the idea of an older Batman that is tired and slightly disillusioned, but I wouldn't have taken it to extent that they have where he becomes more violent and paranoid.

The better articulated version of what I said.

I wouldn't even have Batman in the movie.

I actually don't have a problem with Superman killing Zod to save that family. My issue is it should have been the springboard for him to learn that there has to be another way then killing...but no, he immediately comes out in the next movie and drives a normal human being through like 3 walls.

Pretty much this. I agree that they should have established the rule before or with Zod's death.

Lois and Clark and Smallville examined the relationship dynamic at great length as well as STM and S2. One possible reason for not doing this in MOS and BvS may be that the film makers felt that these things have been done and shown before and wanted to do something different. They did spend "some time" on the relationship, there are quite a few scenes together,- not as a full blown love story but at least we can see the love between them.

Developing their relationship is optional, I would like to develop their characters as independent individuals. Get glimpses of Lois's life before Clark, and all the aforementioned moments for Clark.

 

[Boom]

The opening sequence where Superman drives that man through three walls was the first major warning sign I had with the movie.

Snyder simply opting for a cool (and in his mind, amusing) visual without taking into account the logical implications of the action. And after the huge uproar over him killing Zod in the previous movie, and after Goyer's rationalization that he had to learn that killing is bad (LOL).

It's just so utterly thoughtless.

 

[Lily Adler]

Also re:Batman's involvement. We all know by now that a sequel without Batman was never going to happen since WB had such strange expectations for Man of Steel to do a billion at the box office. It was a desperate move by the creative team and the studio to instill interest in their superhero films and to catch up with Marvel. I would have loved Superman getting his own sequel with a Batman cameo to get people excited for his solo in this continuity.

 

[souperman]

Honestly, If it were up to me, I would have cut out all the Batman stuff. I'd have made Luthor more like the animated series version and have the main physical threat be Metallo (the man who lost his legs).

There's some good ideas in the movie they just aren't well executed. I actually like the discussions surrounding how Superman relates to the world. I would have just preferred Superman be more "Superman-like". This stoic, silent "alien" version of Superman is to "Batman-ish" for my like. There's nothing really distinctive between the two.

Sure there is...One can fly !

I wouldn't even have Batman in the movie.

I actually don't have a problem with Superman killing Zod to save that family. My issue is it should have been the springboard for him to learn that there has to be another way then killing...but no, he immediately comes out in the next movie and drives a normal human being through like 3 walls.

It was only two walls !

But seriously, aside from personal preference of character lore and credos, I have always thought they should have made 2 films. Batman v Superman AND Dawn of Justice as a 2 part film and could have released them like the Hobbit films, 1 year apart. They seem to have enough material and it would have afforded the time to do everything better for relationship and motive building. I understand the business reasons for not doing this and WB long term goals and plans. Maybe they think it would have over-saturated the market?

Oh well, onward and upward...we will get it in the BR I hope.

 

[Lily Adler]

Sure there is...One can fly !



It was only two walls !

But seriously, aside from personal preference of character lore and credos, I have always thought they should have made 2 films. Batman v Superman AND Dawn of Justice as a 2 part film and could have released them like the Hobbit films, 1 year apart. They seem to have enough material and it would have afforded the time to do everything better for relationship and motive building. I understand the business reasons for not doing this and WB long term goals and plans. Maybe they think it would have over-saturated the market?

Oh well, onward and upward...we will get it in the BR I hope.

Also known as World's Finest and Justice League.

 

[Mandon Knight]

When youve finished misinterpreting the question as an attempt to control your feelings, would you mind responding to the question?

If you honestly don't understand the difference between asking someone to provide supporting evidence for their opinion and attempted mind control, I'll try and explain.

We know you liked it, we know it made you cry, but your emotional reaction does not substantiate your beliefs as evidence of the movies quality.

The fact that you cried is not a fact that supports your assertion BvS is a good movie.
It supports only that it made you cry.

We are simply asking you to explain logically what makes the movie good or great objectively.
Without emotion.
Try using a scene that you think is excellent and describing why using the facts of what was presented on screen to support your assertion, without once resorting to "it made me feel".
This can be quotes of pertinent dialogue, specific actions of the characters or a combination of both.
I honestly am interested in what you saw that makes you react that way.
It may be something I've completely missed and not considered.

Do we all not watch a film with the emotive view of how it makes us feel through the very notion of what you mention, the dialogue, the actions of the characters, or a mix of both.

For example, the line 'This is my world, you are my world', thus the inspirational piece referred to in previous posts, Superman is encapsulating that he has been inspired by the people of earth by the first statement and the love of Lois in the other (he's been inspired by her)

The saving sequences - Day of the Dead, Roof top rescue - all actions/scenes that are very much in Superman's nature (indicating it's utter rubbish, that Snyder does not get Superman), he has made Earth his home, at that point, he is playing 'his side of the bargain', it is us as a race of people who do not show the faith in him UNTIL the Doomsday face off and thus in turn, Batman's shift in view.

 

[Boom]

Also re:Batman's involvement. We all know by now that a sequel without Batman was never going to happen since WB had such strange expectations for Man of Steel to do a billion at the box office. It was a desperate move by the creative team and the studio to instill interest in their superhero films and to catch up with Marvel. I would have loved Superman getting his own sequel with a Batman cameo to get people excited for his solo in this continuity.

Here's the thing.

I have no doubt that a Superman story with Batman in a supporting role can work to great effect. This movie deals with the public response to Superman. There will be people who support him, and there will be people who hate and fear him. Lex Luthor naturally lends himself to being the poster child of the latter category. Lois Lane and the Daily Planet lend themselves to the former. But from a storytelling point of view, it would serve Superman to have someone who is planted firmly on the fence - someone who weighs both sides of the argument and (without getting to know his firsthand) harbors some reservations about him without outright condemning him. There should be a grey area, and Batman would lend himself quite naturally towards that role. And over the course of the film, after witnessing what Superman does, Batman chooses his side. And Batman himself can offer advice and wisdom to a Superman that, while growing more comfortable in his role, is still young and with plenty of room for growth.

By having Batman in the movie, you not only continue to see Superman winning over the regular folk, but you get to see him impact on other superheroes. That's a pretty big deal, and sets up his leadership role in JL.

Which ties into my second point. Having Batman in a supporting role still allows the filmmakers their opportunity to world-build without overloading the box. Just by having another superhero in this movie, you establish that there are others out there in the world. Introduce Batman in a Superman sequel, introduce WW with her solo (because she deserves it), and introduce The Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman in-story during The Justice League (Seven Samurai style). Seems perfectly feasible to me. And in my mind, far preferable to distracting this movie with a hodge-podge of JL cameos that serve no purpose to the narrative.

The problem is that WB simply would not accept Batman is a more limited, supporting role. As soon as Zack opened that door, that effectively killed any notion of a full-fledged MoS sequel. Now we're dealing with a movie with two leads. I left this movie with absolute certainty that Superman needed the focus. This movie was an embarrassing disservice to the character.

 

[souperman]

The better articulated version of what I said.

Pretty much this. I agree that they should have established the rule before or with Zod's death.

I my view...there is no RULE yet. Clark/Superman is still feeling around in the dark, trying to make sense of this world and all the hypocrisy and contradiction. His "deepest" values keep him on the straight and narrow, doing the right thing to the best of his "current" capabilities, but he IS conflicted and an emotional being and from time to time gives in to his baser emotions for retaliation and soft core vengeance, fighting Batman, knocking a guy thru a wall ( we need to "trust" he did not kill him as he said) , wrecking a truck, warning Lex that he was not "safe" on the ground. This is Superman "growing" into the hero we want...and yes, in "entertaining" scenes. He will never "murder" or kill without any other option because it is not in his nature but he is not yet morally beyond some non lethal reprisal in MOS and BvS. He wasn't in the Donner films either.

Developing their relationship is optional, I would like to develop their characters as independent individuals. Get glimpses of Lois's life before Clark, and all the aforementioned moments for Clark.

We do glimpse Lois's life before Clark as a reporter in several MOS scenes. MOS picks up from the meeting of L&C. They don't dwell on it because we know who she is from these scenes and may have seemed super-fluous.

 

[souperman]

Also known as World's Finest and Justice League.

that would have been fine too !

 

[X Knight]

I would have preferred a straight up MOS sequel, too, with Lex as the main villain and someone like Metallo as the physical villain. all of the themes they touched upon in BvS ( world opinion vs Superman ) could have been done with just Lex.

you could still introduce Diana and Bruce as cameos, but they wouldn't be a major focus.

WW would be there to allude to the larger picture of other meta humans and perhaps a larger threat in Darkseid. She's investigating some kind of artifact tied to Darkseid, blah, blah.....

Batman would be there in the shadows, keeping tabs on Superman, WW, and the other metas.

for example, the final scene, or post credit scene, would be Batman walking into his bat cave, firing up his bat computer, and he updates his Superman and WW files. the screen pans out and we see files for other metas like Aquaman, Flash, Cyborg, and Matt Damon.

that would be the tease for the next film.

 

[Predator jp]

there were 2 or even 3 great movies hidden within this movie.
that's the most frustrating thing about it all.

 

[Lily Adler]

We do glimpse Lois's life before Clark as a reporter in several MOS scenes. MOS picks up from the meeting of L&C. They don't dwell on it because we know who she is from these scenes and may have seemed super-fluous.

But not her personal life...

 

[souperman]

But not her personal life...

...she has no life... she's a reporter and is not happy unless she is embedded in an army unit...

 

[Micromind]

So as not to get into a circular convo about production quality or editing issues etc, this reply is only about my observations of the portrayal of the character.

Superman, in this rendition at least, IS a babe in the woods. He is a young man who has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal man...yet he has been taught by his parents to hide them and only has used them in times of great peril to save people from certain death. In MOS, after he saves people, he moves on so as not to be discovered. He IS conflicted about HOW or IF he should be using his powers at all based on his fathers wishes and warnings. By hiding his abilities we should also consider that Clark's motive may also be protecting his Mother, realizing that her life would be drastically changed if the world found him out.

These films view Superman as a being that has been orphaned on Earth and knows nothing about his background and is searching for answers. He was not sent here as SUPERMAN. He was sent here as a baby by his parents to survive and maybe one day re-establish the Kryptonian race (but that's another story). He was not sent to Earth as the savior of mankind. The people of Earth made him that after seeing his abilities. That is why he is "uncomfortable" with this notion.

He was not born to be SUPERMAN. He was born to be Kal-El, a Kryptonian boy. Superman is a character he plays for the people of Earth to be able to use his powers in a manner that protects his identity. (and his Mothers).
As a moral and ethical being, in both MOS and BvS it is not out of place for him to have questioned his place in this world and the reaction of humans to him and wonder if he is doing the right thing. He is a reluctant hero, wanting to help but not comfortable with the "misplaced" worship.

This is what I feel is the "realistic" portrayal. Not one that simply has Clark become SUPERMAN all of a sudden, all smiles and happy to be using his super-poweres to save cats.

Although great fun, STM, the first Donner film had an interesting conflict. Jor-El educates Kal in the void for 11 years, teaching him all about Earth and Mankind and warns him; "It is FORBIDEN to interfere in human history"...

He then proceeds to give him a colorful suit and he goes out as SUPERMAN to introduce himself to the world as a superhero. Not very humbly I may add and a bit hypocritical. He has Lois interview him so the world knows he is here. Standing akimbo "I'm here to save you !" YEA! This is a great comic book introduction of a superhero to get the ball rolling and see a lot of cool stuff but hardly a realistic approach to how people really act and react.

I think in JL, we will see a different Superman, maybe this Superman. One that understands better the nature of people and one that accepts his role as a leader and save people "happily" knowing that he has found his place in the world.

PS:
You guys that are taunting people about "proving" or substantiating their "feelings" gotta lay off. It really is unfair. You can not prove to someone else why you felt something. It is subjective. It IS emotional. So why don't all you frustrated pseudo intellectual Mr. Spocks out there quit acting all high and mighty and denigrating others "feelings" because you don't "feel" the same way.

Nice post !

 

[Lily Adler]

...she has no life... she's a reporter and is not happy unless she is embedded in an army unit...

 

[Micromind]

Yes. ^^

... and his father (Kostner) also knew that the world "would" find out eventually, but wanted Clark to be ready. Lois also points out that Clark can't really stop from helping, it is in his nature.

He is simply trying to make sense of it all and figure out HOW to be SUPERMAN in both MOS and BvS.

JL will see a different Superman I think. One that CAN have some fun with his powers and also shows wisdom and leadership...at least I hope so.

Agreed.