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

[DeadStroke]

Even in Suicide Squad (which may be fine if it's a flashback) makes batman look leaner and quicker. The warehouse scene had a stuntman who looked leaner. It's true Tacit. He just came from being beaten up by an alien. The mecha-suit only kept him from staying alive, Zack's words. So why does he move around like it's the first scene of the movie once we get to the warehouse?

Saving Martha was an adrenaline rush for Bruce

 

[DeadStroke]

Wow. So we are complaining about Batman's energy now?

I am speechless. Just wow.

The Bat is dead on this board, bury it.

 

[Jekecy]

It’s been said in countless interviews by Affleck and Snyder that this is an older, TIRED version of the character. He only comes off tired when he's in the public eye. Why not as Batman? He's been doing this for 20 years straight, he should be hobbling around a little bit, not as energetic, looking physically and mentally drained. Everyone likes to defend this movie by saying "this isn't Marvel boys and girls! This is a darker, more realistic tone!". Then when somebody brings up how it’s unrealistic either with characterization, dialogue, or the level of CG used…suddenly people turn it around as if it's more in line with the comics if he's forever a physical specimen.

Well as this the first time I’ve addressed “realism” in relation to this film, I’m not going to speak for those aforementioned people and would preface the following opinion by saying it’s mine alone; I don’t think a 40-something physical phenom being active for 2 decades and is still in great shape, to be far out of the realm of possibility. It’s just not something which jumps out at me. And certainly as a hardcore Batman fan, it’s hardly something I would ever harp on as it’s the character's staple.

I don’t care if I was witnessing the next incarnation of Batman & Robin, I’m never going deduct points from any iteration which wants to uphold that. I think it speaks more to how easy of a target this film has become that we’re even having this discussion.

Then why have him be older? Why try to sell the idea of realism? Why go on record saying it’s a much more tired version?

Because they’re selling a version of Batman with an existential crisis. Someone who’s fought day in, day out, has seen no changes, and is now at the point of going through the motions of vigilantism. Tiring isn’t exclusive to physical limitations, it can also be an attitude and mentality. That’s exactly what we see with Ben, and why he’s almost excited at the prospect of actually making an impact on the world by going after Supes.

It’s a nitpick, but i’m looking at Frank Miller’s novel and thinking WHY NOT THAT!?

Purely conjecture, but I gather he’d be inviting even more criticism than he’s already getting.

 

[FunkMiller]

This Batman can grapnel a large, heavy crate from behind him, fling it over his head effortlessly and hit a thug twenty feet away. He's essentially superhuman.

There is no 'realism' in this movie. It's a comic fantasy. A bad one... but I don't see the point in nitpicking Batfleck's strength or energy levels.

 

[X Knight]

Saving Martha was an adrenaline rush for Bruce

the JL lay defeated at the hands of Darkseid. their bodies battered and broken. as a last ditch effort, they decide to enact Plan M. using the last ounce of their collective strength, they all shout in unison:

MARTHA!!!!

Batman, surging will spectacular energy and renewed vigor, rises up and shouts:

I HAVE THE POWER!!!

Batman then KOs Darkseid in one punch.

 

[king666]

This Batman can grapnel a large, heavy crate from behind him, fling it over his head effortlessly and hit a thug twenty feet away. He's essentially superhuman.

There is no 'realism' in this movie. It's a comic fantasy. A bad one... but I don't see the point in nitpicking Batfleck's strength or energy levels.

Yeah. I love unrealistic ninja Batman. Would be cool if they just dropped the realism bs and embraced the "comic fantasy" side of these characters.

 

[souperman]

This Batman can grapnel a large, heavy crate from behind him, fling it over his head effortlessly and hit a thug twenty feet away. He's essentially superhuman.

There is no 'realism' in this movie. It's a comic fantasy. A bad one... but I don't see the point in nitpicking Batfleck's strength or energy levels.

not intended as an argument for "strength, but maybe an observation. I agree this Batman exhibits some "superhuman" strength in certain scenes as do other renditions making some scenes "questionable" but no more so than many other CBM characters. Does anyone really think ScarJo could take on a room full of killers single handed?

I believe the crate and also the swinging Superman around by his feet scenes were using his grappling gun/ bungee cord cwink device to assist the pulling action. Sure, not realistic , nor was the fact that he could move at all in the armor. The shot of Batman leaping onto Superman and plunging him thru the skylight...riding him to the floor and crashing... but was able to remain standing ! is incredible!t:

Batman also is able to kick a 200 pound man across the room like a football which make me want to believe that the suit was "powered" in some way and NOT just a metal suit. TDKR had the power leg for Bale so... maybe...

CBM action and fights are never "realistic" in any real sense but "should" try to keep it believable.

None of this ruined the entertainment value for me on viewing but upon reflection, they "could" have done things a bit differently. Not sure why they don't just ask me...

 

[shauner111]

It's definitely over the top, but i don't mind it. I expected that going into a universe with aliens and gods walking the earth. It just annoys me when FANS try to make their defenses based on comments about realism.

One other thing that bugged me was the cops reaction in Batman first scene. I don't get his reaction at all. 20 years, Batman has been around. This cop has never seen him before, OK, but both cops enter the scene and see a bat symbol in a wall. They know what they're getting themselves into at this point. The cop puts his gun down when he sees the man tied up, looks around, sees a Bat shaped man or creature on the wall and starts shooting at him. I get that he's nervous, and maybe Snyder was playing it for laughs but Batman has been around for 20 years. Im sure the cops have been working with him or turning a blind eye. They knew Batman was in there or at least had been inside that building at some point that night. "I never saw him, i didn't know.." he says this immediately after shooting at Bats like 5 times.

Is Batman supposed to be an urban legend for 20 years? Interesting. But they never say this in the movie. Maybe Clark finds that out in the director's cut? These cops were acting like they never seen Batman at all.

 

[MAN O STEEL]

Does seem odd that no matter the quality, every marvel movie get's a fresh rating, usually in the 90% range, even though they've pumped out absolute drivel like IM2, IM3, Thor 2, Avenger's 2, The incredible Hulk, Ant-Man (imo it was a borefest and cliche). Yet movies like Batman v Superman and MOS, though very very far from perfect get ****tier scores than f****** Evolution with sean william scott got a higher rating FFS. As someone who is not a fanboy, I've never read a comic in my life, I as a general movie goer, find that to be a little fishy.

 

[DeadStroke]

Does seem odd that no matter the quality, every marvel movie get's a fresh rating, usually in the 90% range, even though they've pumped out absolute drivel like IM2, IM3, Thor 2, Avenger's 2, The incredible Hulk, Ant-Man (imo it was a borefest and cliche). Yet movies like Batman v Superman and MOS, though very very far from perfect get ****tier scores than f****** Evolution with sean william scott got a higher rating FFS. As someone who is not a fanboy, I've never read a comic in my life, I as a general movie goer, find that to be a little fishy.

Only 5 Marvel movies are CLEARLY better than BvS and MOS to me.

GOTG, WS, IM 1, Avengers, CW

The rest are not better or not better by much.

However, the reaction to BvS/MOS shows me that people are far more forgiving when the movie is fun and enjoyable throughout. If its dour for a large segment then the flaws are magnified.

We could even pick CW apart if we really want too. However, you have such a great time watching it...why bother?

 

[Flint Marko]

Does seem odd that no matter the quality, every marvel movie get's a fresh rating, usually in the 90% range, even though they've pumped out absolute drivel like IM2, IM3, Thor 2, Avenger's 2, The incredible Hulk, Ant-Man (imo it was a borefest and cliche). Yet movies like Batman v Superman and MOS, though very very far from perfect get ****tier scores than f****** Evolution with sean william scott got a higher rating FFS. As someone who is not a fanboy, I've never read a comic in my life, I as a general movie goer, find that to be a little fishy.

Here's the biggest problem with this argument, and I'm not just trying to call you out, but this is something that happens all the time here.

"Something is clearly going on because movie x is getting great reviews while movie y is not!"

This line of thinking posits the notion that your opinion is in some way an objective measure that should be considered and honored by every critic. You didn't like any of the aforementioned MCU films? Great, but it appears you are in the minority on that one so I'm not sure why your taste is the standard which we should judge all films by.

 

[Vaibow]

the JL lay defeated at the hands of Darkseid. their bodies battered and broken. as a last ditch effort, they decide to enact Plan M. using the last ounce of their collective strength, they all shout in unison:

MARTHA!!!!

Batman, surging will spectacular energy and renewed vigor, rises up and shouts:

I HAVE THE POWER!!!

Batman then KOs Darkseid in one punch.

Bravo

 

[Lencho01]

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.

For me it was a combo of making it look like Martha Wayne got her head blown off and the Batman Forever levels of goofiness of Bruce being lifted up by bats.

And I knew the Superman driving a man through the wall would be the new equivalent of Superman "killing" Zod in the second Reeve film. Tone is such an important issue and how people view both scenes.

 

[X Knight]

Only 5 Marvel movies are CLEARLY better than BvS and MOS to me.

GOTG, WS, IM 1, Avengers, CW

The rest are not better or not better by much.

However, the reaction to BvS/MOS shows me that people are far more forgiving when the movie is fun and enjoyable throughout. If its dour for a large segment then the flaws are magnified.

We could even pick CW apart if we really want too. However, you have such a great time watching it...why bother?

the ironic thing is, I found CW to be quite serious itself. other than Spidey, Ant-Man, and a bit from Falcon and Bucky, there weren't many laughs or lighthearted moments.

I wouldn't exactly call CW a "fun" movie.

 

[souperman]

It's definitely over the top, but i don't mind it. I expected that going into a universe with aliens and gods walking the earth. It just annoys me when FANS try to make their defenses based on comments about realism.

One other thing that bugged me was the cops reaction in Batman first scene. I don't get his reaction at all. 20 years, Batman has been around. This cop has never seen him before, OK, but both cops enter the scene and see a bat symbol in a wall. They know what they're getting themselves into at this point. The cop puts his gun down when he sees the man tied up, looks around, sees a Bat shaped man or creature on the wall and starts shooting at him. I get that he's nervous, and maybe Snyder was playing it for laughs but Batman has been around for 20 years. Im sure the cops have been working with him or turning a blind eye. They knew Batman was in there or at least had been inside that building at some point that night. "I never saw him, i didn't know.." he says this immediately after shooting at Bats like 5 times.

Is Batman supposed to be an urban legend for 20 years? Interesting. But they never say this in the movie. Maybe Clark finds that out in the director's cut? These cops were acting like they never seen Batman at all.

I see your point. The only rational, and I agree it is not illustrated on film in THIS film, is the current nature of Batman in Gotham. All I can say about the shooting is that he was startled and scared and started shooting. In Nolan's version there was a little hypocrisy or mixed feelings too. Gordon has the Batsignal suggesting the Cops call Batman for help...yet...he is a wanted vigilantly. Some know and some do not know or trust and don't trust. Gordon is "working" with him but Foley is trying to capture or kill him. I know, he was painted as Dents killer but they sure accept his help later with no problem.

I BvS as you point out, it seems the younger Cops know the folklore but haven't see or heard much of the Bat in recent times. Maybe Batman really is "semi-retired" for lack of a better term, and had not shown himself very much for quite a while suggesting the urban myth theory but this is a little confusing because of the news report suggesting the brand is something to fear...not the best piece of plot-forming rational but not a buzz kill either.

In BvS, we don't know for sure if he still works with the cops or maybe has gone rogue after some crisis with Gordon etc...Again, there are certainly holes in the fabric if you are looking for them as there are in many films if you look too close and agree we should not be able to see them at first glance.

Hopefully we get some closure in JL and it will address these questions just a little.

 

[I Am The Knight]

It's definitely over the top, but i don't mind it. I expected that going into a universe with aliens and gods walking the earth. It just annoys me when FANS try to make their defenses based on comments about realism.

One other thing that bugged me was the cops reaction in Batman first scene. I don't get his reaction at all. 20 years, Batman has been around. This cop has never seen him before, OK, but both cops enter the scene and see a bat symbol in a wall. They know what they're getting themselves into at this point. The cop puts his gun down when he sees the man tied up, looks around, sees a Bat shaped man or creature on the wall and starts shooting at him. I get that he's nervous, and maybe Snyder was playing it for laughs but Batman has been around for 20 years. Im sure the cops have been working with him or turning a blind eye. They knew Batman was in there or at least had been inside that building at some point that night. "I never saw him, i didn't know.." he says this immediately after shooting at Bats like 5 times.

Is Batman supposed to be an urban legend for 20 years? Interesting. But they never say this in the movie. Maybe Clark finds that out in the director's cut? These cops were acting like they never seen Batman at all.

Yeah before the movie came out they said that Batman has been an urban legend for 20 years

 

[Boom]

So... Gordon will be meeting Batman for the first time in the JL then?

 

[Lencho01]

The prequel comics showed that Batman worked to make sure people didn't really know about him for some reason.

 

[Timebomb]

Does seem odd that no matter the quality, every marvel movie get's a fresh rating, usually in the 90% range, even though they've pumped out absolute drivel like IM2, IM3, Thor 2, Avenger's 2, The incredible Hulk, Ant-Man (imo it was a borefest and cliche). Yet movies like Batman v Superman and MOS, though very very far from perfect get ****tier scores than f****** Evolution with sean william scott got a higher rating FFS. As someone who is not a fanboy, I've never read a comic in my life, I as a general movie goer, find that to be a little fishy.

If you are a general movie goer then you probably shouldn't care what a critic says one way or the other. If you like it, great, if you don't, great. Now if you actually care why a critic says something is good or bad then I suggest reading the review with an open mind. Listen to praises and criticisms. Study film, learn about the telling of stories via a visual medium so that you might understand where a critic is coming from. You might find that their sole purpose in life is not to bash movies you like. You might actually start to see some of the things the way they see them. Then when you see a majority of them criticizing a film, you will have the answer to your question. You might also understand why they like some of the films you do. Just a thought.

 

[AndrewOz]

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.

You raise some interesting scenes and points.
You are clearly walking away from it with a far more positive interpretation than many of us.
Yes, we all want to see positives in Superman, but many of us do not see this in the movie.

I will now attempt to explain why I see these scenes very differently than you.

This is not to invalidate your interpretation, but to explain why other people do not see what you see.
The main reason being there are other things in this movie that I see that when I include them in the narrative, create problems of logic that outweigh what you see and in some cases, the obvious intent of the creative team that made the scene.
Starting with Superman's death.

"This is my world. You are my world".
I see this scene completely different from you, both motivationally and practically.
Motivationally, I see a man demonstrated throughout this movie as having lost faith in humanity. His reactions throughout the movie and the scenes show that and it is deliberate.

It is meant to show his frustration and disillusionment leading up to the climax, giving us a plausible reason for him to be absent and distracted enough for Lex to be able kidnap both Lois and Martha.

During the course of the film, he hardly speaks, either as Superman or Clark.
As though he thinks communication is either beneath him, or he's so insecure he simply cannot find words, or so depressed he hasn't the motivation to. That's my interpretation, but his lack of communication is a fact
In the entire movie, as both Clark and Superman, he speaks with only 5 people.
It progressively gets worse throughout the movie.

With the evidence of his character and mindset from the first 2 hours of the movie informing that scene, his stating that this is his world is not evidence of his regaining his faith in humanity.

There has been nothing presented in the movie to justify his change in mindset.

Believing that he has changed is an act of faith.
Faith is only logically possible in the absence of contrary evidence.
The first two hours of the movie provide ample contrary evidence.
Believing he has changed in the absence of justifiable evidence is illogical. Some people have blind faith. Many do not.

So, I see a Superman prepared to give his all to protect the woman he loves.
That in itself may be a noble sentiment, but the way he sacrificed himself was foolish and unnecessary. I'm not meant to think that, the movie does not intend that, but it provides contextual evidence so that it is the only logical conclusion, based on the evidence they put on the screen.
This is why:
He is supposed to be fighting with Batman and Wonder Woman.
The spear being Kryptonite makes him the worst possible choice to wield it for the final confrontation. Holding the spear makes him far weaker than Wonder Woman, weaker than Batman. He is also far less skilled in combat than either.
A self aware Superman who has regained his faith in an unfair and, at least as far as the movie has shown, unworthy humanity, would surely have faith and trust in the people fighting at his side.
With that in mind, unless he is meant to be an idiot, what logical reason could he have to give one of them the spear instead?

So instead of coming off as man reluctantly making a noble tragic sacrifice, as he did in the comic, the movie showed me a man completely overwhelmed by the circumstances and threw his life away in a panic to save the woman he loved.
He may have believed it was noble and brave, the movie clearly wants it to seem so, but the way they staged it means as soon as you remove the emotion of the moment and look at the circumstances, it becomes a tragic, avoidable waste.
Emotionally, I'm torn between pity for him and rage at his thoughtless imbecility.
Neither is an acceptable response to the death of Superman for me, but it is the unavoidable consequence of the structure and circumstance of the scene.

Logically, I am amazed at the stupidity of the team that presented the circumstances that utterly undermine their obvious intent

There are many ways to make that scene work the way it was intended, but the key logical problem is the spear.
In the comic, there were no Kryptonite weapons. Superman and Doomsday fight to the death bare-handed. That would have worked here.
Remove the Kryptonite spear and the major complaints and ridicule in this scene go away with it.

Why is the Kryptonite spear such a problem? The answer is simply logic.

Logically, the spear shouldn't even be in the movie.
It makes no sense for Batman to make it. If he's committed to killing Superman, why is the spear a suitable weapon?
If he is using machine guns as the follow up to the disorienting effect of the sonics, why didn't he carve Kryptonite bullets if he wants him dead?
If he can make gas grenades with Kryptonite, why didn't he make frags? A lot less effort, with far more effect.

Even leaving aside those questions, which my logical mind cannot, having Superman wield the spear at all should be impossible according to the internal logic of the movie itself.
He couldn't even stay conscious long enough with it in his hand to retrieve it from the water. Lois had to save him from drowning. The movie showed he couldn't even stand in its presence, but we are supposed to accept that he can now fly with it in his hand?

Most of the jokes, memes and ridicule about Superman's death in this film are easily preventable with the removal of the spear.
The spear is only there so Snyder can recreate King Arthur's death scene from the 1981 movie Excalibur, which he showed at the start of BvS as the movie the Wayne's had watched just before the murder of Thomas and Martha.
So Snyder's choices create the logic problems that undermine the intended gravitas of his scenes.

The saving scenes prove beyond all doubt that Snyder simply does not understand the character of Superman at all.
For one very simple reason that I've already touched on above.
He doesn't speak.
Superman always engages those he saves in conversation.
The only times he doesn't is when he does so at super speed on the way to saving someone else.
Whenever he stops, he always warmly engages.
There are many practical reasons for this.
A remote, silent automaton with that level of power is a frightening concept. Without communication to allay the natural fear, even the saved will become naturally suspicious of his motives. What does he really want? Why is he really here?
Superman speaks to show he cares, to reassure the people he saves and those watching of his genuine compassion and altruistic motives. This is then spread by word of mouth, which translates into support for and belief in the character.
It humanises him and is thus responsible for his popularity and iconic status.
Remove that and you remove the publics faith and trust, replacing it with suspicion, resentment and fear.
Snyder removes it completely.
This removal does justify the public's suspicion and fear of Superman displayed in BvS.
So perhaps he does understand the character after all and has subverted it deliberately in order to give us a powered Kryptonian character on screen that has Superman's physicality but none of his character.

That he would think this would resonate with audiences says to me that he fails to grasp what has made the character an icon in the first place.
If he believes the public wants a "new" version of Superman and his vision is it, he is clearly and demonstrably mistaken.
It may be for some, but after the reception of both MoS and BvS, it shows it does not resonate with the many in the way they thought it would.

Those are my thoughts and issues with the scenes you've described. I'd be interested to hear why the logic problems I see within the movie aren't issues for you.

 

[AndrewOz]

Yeah before the movie came out they said that Batman has been an urban legend for 20 years

Yet Clark also says to Perry that as near as he can figure it, the Gotham cops are helping him for some reason....

 

[Flint Marko]

You raise some interesting scenes and points.
You are clearly walking away from it with a far more positive interpretation than many of us.

This whole post....

 

[Brother Jack]

One other thing that bugged me was the cops reaction in Batman first scene. I don't get his reaction at all. 20 years, Batman has been around. This cop has never seen him before, OK, but both cops enter the scene and see a bat symbol in a wall. They know what they're getting themselves into at this point. The cop puts his gun down when he sees the man tied up, looks around, sees a Bat shaped man or creature on the wall and starts shooting at him. I get that he's nervous, and maybe Snyder was playing it for laughs but Batman has been around for 20 years. Im sure the cops have been working with him or turning a blind eye. They knew Batman was in there or at least had been inside that building at some point that night. "I never saw him, i didn't know.." he says this immediately after shooting at Bats like 5 times.

Is Batman supposed to be an urban legend for 20 years? Interesting. But they never say this in the movie. Maybe Clark finds that out in the director's cut? These cops were acting like they never seen Batman at all.

That scene played out as though Batman had been gone for several years, ala DKR. Which is what I thought they were doing in the lead up to the film. It's almost like they had written part of the script with him coming out of retirement and then changed their minds partway through.

 

[shauner111]

The saving scenes prove beyond all doubt that Snyder simply does not understand the character of Superman at all.
For one very simple reason that I've already touched on above.
He doesn't speak.
Superman always engages those he saves in conversation.
The only times he doesn't is when he does so at super speed on the way to saving someone else.
Whenever he stops, he always warmly engages.
There are many practical reasons for this.
A remote, silent automaton with that level of power is a frightening concept. Without communication to allay the natural fear, even the saved will become naturally suspicious of his motives. What does he really want? Why is he really here?
Superman speaks to show he cares, to reassure the people he saves and those watching of his genuine compassion and altruistic motives. This is then spread by word of mouth, which translates into support for and belief in the character.
It humanises him and is thus responsible for his popularity and iconic status.
Remove that and you remove the publics faith and trust, replacing it with suspicion, resentment and fear.
Snyder removes it completely.
This removal does justify the public's suspicion and fear of Superman displayed in BvS.
So perhaps he does understand the character after all and has subverted it deliberately in order to give us a powered Kryptonian character on screen that has Superman's physicality but none of his character.

 

[WBwins]

Andrewoz is killing it.