Discussion in 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' started by Thread Manager, Mar 4, 2017.
Watching BvS and the The Dark Knight Returns Part 2 at the same time and the fight scene from the DKR is so much better. First, there is no smile or smirk when Batman is fighting Superman. Just business. The smirks and smiles in BvS always bothered me.
Also in the DKR, when the bomb explodes, it has devastating effects on the world, where in BvS, it does nothing.
The other thing is simply that Batman's biggest asset was not his muscles but his brain. He was the leader of the JL because he was the smartest. That does not appear to be the case in BvS.
Many of those things bothered me much more than the Martha thing people harped on.
Have to agree, watched it again tonight in anticipation of JL and still enjoyed it a hell of a lot. The Doomsday fight especially gets better with each viewing for me. But I notice new details each time I rewatch the movie and enjoy it all the more.
This film has sooooo many layers. It's incredible.
It does seem like you weren't paying attention to some degree given that some of your issues are dealt with in the movie (some in the TC, more in the UC) or simply don't make sense when exposed to scrutiny.
Superman confronts Batman within the chase telling him that his behavior has crossed the line so much that he forbids him to be Batman anymore with any further action being a one way ticket to jail. Batman gets the message loud and clear, which is why he uses his Batsignal to taunt Superman into making good on his threat. Moreover, it's not just Alfred who confronts Bruce. Clark does it too in his reporter persona, telling Bruce "Civil liberties have been trampled on in your city. Good people living in fear. I've seen it, Mr. Wayne. He thinks he's above the law." I also think it's a bit of a stretch to complain about Alfred not confronting Bruce. He warns him about his "new rules," and describes him as a "good" man on the path to "cruel[ty]" which is fueled by Bruce's "fever" and "rage." He stays by Bruce's side, but he never stops trying to talk him out of it.
No, his intervention is the issue. It was wrong. In Greg Rucka's Sacrifice arc, a villain (Max Lord, I believe) uses the fact that Superman can't intervene in a war zone and his love for Lois against him. Lois is shot, Superman rushes to save her, and it incites an international incident. In the New 52, Superman and Wonder Woman interfering in Khandaq and other places is cause enough for controversy about superheroes and their role in international and geopolitical affairs. Superman's presence in Nairomi in BvS is enough to raise questions, and they are fair questions. Beyond that, you're wrong to say that Superman isn't shown to care for the villagers. In the UC, he prevents the CIA from drone bombing the entire place to cover up their mess. He also removes the warlord from the scene first, because he's the one threatening to kill Lois and who employed the people killing others because the CIA's presence (Jimmy) had been discovered. I believe the others were shot before Superman arrived, and KGBeast was simply burning their already dead bodies to frame Superman. What Kahina says at the hearing, and then recants when she talks to Senator Finch in private thus dooming her, is not an accurate representation of what truly happened.
That's not what happened either. Clark doesn't say he doesn't care about what happened to the people. He says, "I don't care what they're saying. The woman I love could have been blown up or shot." What they're saying is that he did something he didn't do: he didn't kill anyone. He doesn't care because, in his mind, if an innocent person is in danger, as Lois was, then he isn't going to stand by and do nothing regardless of whether or not something bad could happen. It's the Lang farm analogy. Do you not save your farm in the off chance it might cause problems for someone else? Does he not act as Superman, if it causes people distress, as June Finch suggests to Charlie Rose? She doesn't feel Superman should act unilaterally even to save a hypothetical child from drowning. Meanwhile, people are saying on the news that "On this Earth, every act is a political act." So was going to save Lois not the right thing to do? Should he do, as Jonathan suggested Clark might have had to do as a teenager and let people die and, as Jor El in the Donner films would say, not place one above the rest -- something Superman ignores in Superman I when he plays god with time to revive Lois and considers, only to reconsider, when he gives up being Superman to be with Lois in Superman II?
They're not entirely false charges. He is responsible for interfering in the situation (getting ensnared in Luthor's trap, though he doesn't realize it yet), and he can't promise anyone that something like that won't happen again. He can't clear his name or sell his case for that charge. Heck, it's confusing to have you say that Superman should clear his name and sell his case while also condemning him for not caring about the lives of the villagers. Either you think he did something wrong that does blemish his name and his case or you don't. It's also false to say he does nothing to try to clear his name or, in this case, help people understand his point of view and cooperate. First of all, he knows Lois is working on the story exposing what really happened. She's better suited to the task because she's at least a little less biased than he is, and she also has connections that he doesn't. Second of all, he almost immediately tries to find Kahina to talk to her after he sees her on the news. When the opportunity arises to speak to Finch's committee, he seizes it. As for his investigation into the Batman, I'd like you to look at Perry White's reaction and sell the idea that Clark's investigation into Batman was "halfhearted" in the slightest. He pursues it with vigor on multiple occasions while also considering and acting on what's going on with the Africa incident.
You can't be serious. Superman withdraws because every action of his creates problems for others, hence Jonathan's Lang farm analogy. He tried to do the right thing, speak to the committee, and someone used that against him to target innocent people to get to him. He tries to help the emergency workers after the bombing in the UC, but they ask him to leave. He withdraws because he cares too much. He doesn't want his next move to just create more suffering. However, his time to think and recall Jonathan's parable, so to speak, and his advice about someone you love who helps you deal with the nightmares that come from not being able to control everything and fix everything, reinvigorates him.
A faulty conclusion derived from faulty evidence and a faulty recollection and interpretation of the film.
The core issue Superman had with Batman was that he had crossed a line. However, he learns from Luthor that Bruce had been manipulated, and he sees in Bruce's ability to bring himself back from the brink and honor his promise to save Martha that he was someone to believe in. Isn't your Superman a Superman who would choose to have faith in someone and who would believe in second chances? Moreover, Batman's problem with Superman was never extralegal heroism. He was concerned about Superman one day becoming corrupted, because good guys don't stay good, according to Bruce. Except with Superman, a bad Superman is an unstoppable threat to the world, in Bruce's view. Again, Bruce can only resolve his issues if he's able to have faith in Superman. Remember Finch's words: Good is a conversation. It is not black and white or static. No one stays good, as we all stumble and fall from time to time. Being able to have faith in one another is the resolution of how to deal with the nightmare Luthor describes in the film as "the problem of of evil in the world" and "the problem of absolute virtue." For Batman, his arc from BvS to JL is about promises. He begins BvS believing that promises to stay good are worthless, yet ends the film making a promise to Clark to save Martha and to do better. In JL, we see him desperate to make good on that promise. He even says in JL, "I made him a promise." I don't see how that's opposite to anything or underserving Superman.
Huh? BvS has Batman choose to have faith in Superman. He still believes there's a 1% chance that Superman could one day become an enemy, but he's choosing to be optimistic -- to focus on the 99% instead of the 1%. He chooses to trust fellow heroes and their ability to work together to do the impossible and save the day.
Superman had a much more balanced characterization in Snyder's cut of BvS, and in both MoS and BvS the world has had a front row seat to multiple acts of Superman caring about them. He saves them when they are in need. He answers Finch's call to speak, which she frames as an act that would show that he is "good" because he's willing to hold himself accountable and humble himself to the people's power; because he cares about justice. JL also focuses on the effect of Superman's death on those who knew him as Clark, so we follow up and feel with Martha, Lois, Bruce, and Diana who all knew or were touched by him to varying degrees. Throughout BvS, we also saw that people built monuments to Superman, greeted him with joy when he saved them, cheered him on at the Capitol alongside detractors, and inspired lines like Perry's about the "love affair" with Superman and Clark's about the people not "sharing" Bruce's negative opinion.
In what way? They are heroes who society understands to be imperfect but with good intentions. According to Suicide Squad, the government saw Superman as someone who shared their values. Metahumans led by or working with Superman are those they, and the people, could trust. They are also only just beginning their public roles as superheroes; their foundations aren't even entirely set yet.
I disagree, as you can tell.
Thought it was dopey enough to share.
How would you go about fixing this film if you could? What would you do differently? Or how would you make it better?
There's no need to 'fix' it, the ultimate edition just needs to cut down some of it's run-time, it needs better editing.
I would shorten the Batman (Batmobile chase scene) chasing Lex' Luthor's goons to get Kryptonite.
I would trim some seconds (like 100 or 120 sec) from Batman V Superman fight and I would place Diana watching Lex Luthor's files on meta-humans as a mid credits scene.
Turns out BvS was much better than Justice League.
Man of Steel keeps improving.
That's not saying much.
Ron Howard Narrator: It wasnt
Man of Steel is the best of the lot.
No doubt about it. I still don't like the overall interpretation of the character but as a movie it is still the best of the Snyder DC films.
Happy BvS day!
Thank you Zaddy and crew for the masterpiece!
I love all the dialogues in it. I'll celebrate by posting this gif.
For me it would really come down to a fundamental understanding about what makes Batman vs Superman conflicts interesting. Synder didn't understand that, at it's most fundamental level, what makes conflicts between these two fun and dynamic is contrast. Superman and Batman are very different people and this should be represented in everything from the colors of their costumes to their personalities and life view. Second, it's also that they are friends who care about each other. That's what gives the fight in The Dark Knight Returns weight, they are friends, they just have come to a point where they fundamentally disagree. That adds dramatic weight. There's a reason when we do see them in conflict when they first meet, it's typically resolved fairly quickly, because at heart they do realize they fight for the same sight.
It's once they have built a relationship and they come into conflict over more nuanced angles of their belief systems that you can have a more interesting conflict.
Synder really wanted to do a deconstruction of these characters, and that's fine, but you need to establish their status quo first, and that's ultimately why the film didn't work for me.
He did an apt job of getting two strangers to come into conflict, which happens far too often amongst diametrically opposed folks based on a difference in politics OR rather perspective. Has to be even worse for those who have that much more power at their disposal to do immeasurable damage.
Bruce Wayne's insecurities have never been more upfront.
Clark Kent's quest for justice to the impoverished is well highlighted even when his investigation is misplaced.
Wayne just has his butler by his side who he keeps pushing away as these nightmares and escalating situations torment him.
Clark has his family who he turns to often, to seek bliss...even when he's in the middle of nowhere to find the answer to his predicament.
The initial conflict set up I really enjoyed actually. The first 20 mins of BvS were great. The imagery of Bruce on the ground, seeing the devastation...that was really good stuff.
It's how the two characters interact with each other that I had the problem. A Superman who is already at a crisis of identity with how he feels in regards to helping humanity, his overly aggressive way of handling Batman, and generally being at a level of depression for much of the film. That's not a good operating level for Superman. B:TAS did their first meet and conflict so much better, with Superman still inherently disliking Batman's extreme methods, and Batman not trusting a being with so much power who was basically unchecked.
But Superman's arc feels much more akin to an arc similar to something Batman should go through, OR an arc Superman should have much later after we've established his status quo.
And then I obviously was not a fan of Batman being ready to kill readily. And before we get into the debate of the times he has and hasn't stood by the no kill rule in the comics, a killing Batman simply isn't an interpretation I enjoy. It's not one I'm interested in. And that's really just personal preference.
But I would agree that the initial set up was done well, the following was what I had an issue with.
Great post. I thought the set up and the conflict worked well too. I'd seen other takes on Superman and Batman clashing, and they never worked for me. The narrative in BvS that focused on the process of discovery, fear, confrontation, and resolution clarified the characters and issues at work and made more sense to me than two friends who had grown to know and understand each other turning on each other so intensely.
I'm also in agreement with notable comics creator Grant Morrison who admired the way BvS transformed the conflict in TDKR to make Superman a representation of the underdog and the outsider. Since that relates so well to contemporary political and social issues, it made the whole story feel even more powerful.
I saw it as Clark is dumbfounded that he's doing all these deeds and the news being the news has to overthink what he's done. There's another hero in town, whose probably worth more scrutiny, and he's supposedly been at it for a lot longer + messing up more recently.
Bruce Wayne on the other hand, seems to have been reading up on Superman "puff pieces" whilst also absorbing all the controversies surrounding the God-like figure. He also rationalizes his new methods as being this domestic war that just won't stop & now has this other, more global thing to worry about.
The movie has two breaking points for each character. Superman needing to see what Batman is capable of, even if he's taking out the military-fitted trash, and going far enough for him to intervene and demand him to stop. The second is Superman being right then and there is futile against instantaneous mass death & destruction...what Bruce Wayne had to endure during BZE. While that would enrage Bruce Wayne further into taking action, Clark Kent should and has reacted differently.
Nah. JL gave us likable characters and a team dynamic that showed genuine potential. Id like to see that version of the DCEU continue and improve, but its probably too late.
Clark being dumbfounded that the public isn't supporting him is something I'm okay with...IF they had depicted him as continuing to act like Superman on top of that. At his core, Superman is about hope, he's about inspiration, and he's about having faith that humanity will do what is right. Which is what puts him at stark contrast with Batman, who believes in pragmatism, in preparing for the worst possible outcome, in understanding the dark parts of humanity so he can fight against it.
But we didn't get that Superman. We got a Superman who says "no on stays good in this world." And again, I'm not even completely against Superman saying that at some point, but it should NOT be in the second film he appears in when we haven't established his base core values and personality yet. It's not interesting to see him losing faith because we've never seen him have faith.
Again, that kind of arc is something I would expect out of Batman or a much older Superman. Because of that, there was not much dynamic contrast between Batman and Superman. Added to that, the way Batman decides to instigate the conflicts and his willingness to instantly go to murder in regards to Superman took would could have been a nuanced conflict and simplified it far too much.
It's not that the basic premise of BvS was inherently flawed, it's that much of it wasn't well developed, or it was playing with concepts that need to be earned to have weight.
MoS literally has a scene in which a minister encourages Clark to take a leap of faith, and he does. That leap of faith carries with him throughout MoS and all the way through BvS. He has faith after Kahina speaks about Nairomi; he has faith after Keefe spray paints his words of protest at Heroes' Park; he has faith after he confronts a cynical Bruce Wayne at a the fundraiser gala; he has faith after a myriad of saves leaves people wondering, "Must there be a Superman?" He briefly pulls back after the Capitol bombing, but that's because the bomb happened because of him and first responders refused his help in the aftermath. He did say, "No one stays good in this world," but he never acted on it. He stayed good when he chose to apologize to Batman and seek his help rather than throw the first punch. He stayed good and chose faith when he didn't kill Batman and when he chose Batman to save his mother. He chose faith when he believed Bruce's promise to save his mother. Superman wondered aloud if Lex's ultimatum would change him, and when the crisis came, it didn't. That's all you need to know in order to judge whether his core values remained in tact -- to judge whether or not he truly lost faith.
I don't think it's simple at all. You seem to view at as simplistic because of your expectations for Batman as a character: the iconic Batman would be more rational and methodical. But that clearly isn't how Bruce is characterized in BvS. He's a man twisted by trauma. The BZE has shaken Bruce to the point that the things that he relied on to force the world to make sense -- the things that give him a sense of power and control -- are in flux. The whole film Bruce is back in the fight-or-flight mindset he was back in the alley the night his parents were murdered. Choices and actions flowing from that point is an idea and a characterization that is nuanced and complex.
Definitely, like much better.
Still a ridiculously under rated CBM for me.