BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - - - Part 307

[Micromind]

Does anyone still like the movie?

I think BvS EE is the movie I wanted to see and it meets my expectations.

 

[Neil McCauley]

I think BvS EE is the movie I wanted to see and it meets my expectations.

Fair enough, I think Luthor is the main flaw tbh.

 

[NotNickFury]

I never saw BvS in IMAX, though in hindsight I think that would've been a fun experience. Either way, looks like Snyder is looking to restore its IMAX ratio.

 

[TheVileOne]

So glad we got that blistering scene of Lex Luthor's head being shaved in full IMAX ratio.

 

[Primal Slayer]

Watched again today...it has its parts The opening, the Diana scenes, Trinity but apart from that I still am not in love with it like I was during the promo days.

Supermans whole arc/journey was so rushed, it still saddens me that Cavill never got to properly play Clark/Superman.

 

[CLARKY]

I agree here, he/they wanted to put too many things into the movie and the main things seem rushed to me too. And I agree, the Superman whole arc is too rushed to me. And it saddens me too that Henry Cavill never got to play CK/Sup to his full potential. At the end of MoS I was so hyped about the future and what Henry Cavill could have done with it.
I DID love Brandon Routh but somehow I felt that Henry Cavill managed to bring a excellent new chemistry that needed to be explored just as Chris Reeves did back in the day.

 

[Dk1201]

I enjoy the film and would like a second one

 

[Aurakles]

Why would they target Superman and blame him for an attack and deaths they know were caused by Lex Luthor?

I haven't seen BvS in an age, and so I might be slightly off base in what I'm about to ask here, but why would the authorities even believe that Superman killed those terrorists? Putting aside that they were burnt to a crisp, they all had multiple bullets embedded in their bodies, didn't they? Surely even a cursory autopsy would find that to be the case?

It's important to remember that the US Government is not one unified organisation, often the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.
So much is kept secret, that even most elected officials are in the dark about a lot of what the Military is doing. The last time there was a major investigation into this was the Church and Pike Commission in the seventies which brought revealed many secret operations. Look at whistleblowers like Snowden in recent years.
This is a long way of saying that it's highly likely Senator Finch doesn't know everything the CIA knows. She is being kept in the dark by the CIA who don't want to own up to their mistakes.

The bodies were not in the US, they were in a African nation currently I'm a civil war. The US government has no right to take hold on the bodies for autopsies, the the local government has no interest in investigating. Frankly it's in the Nairomian governments interest to play up the idea that Superman killed the rebels, because it suggests that he is on their side of the civil war.

 

[Aurakles]

Yeah, I get that, but violence should have been the last resort, not the first, where Superman is concerned.

I think it was the last resort.
Let's go through it:


"Bruce, please, I was wrong. You have to listen to me. Lex wants-"
Sonic weapons activate

Superman starts with an apology and a request for conversation. He's adopting a conciliatory posture. He tries to explain what Luthor is doing when he gets cuff off by the sonic attack.

"You don't understand, there's no time." Understandably he's a bit annoyed now, he's trying to be patient but he's probably got a pretty bad headache now from the sonics. The conciliatory posture didn't work so now he's being a bit more forceful.

"I understand!"

Superman had tried to reason with Batman, but he's refusing to listen and shouting in his face. Superman is already having a bad night, and now this guy he already thinks is a bit of a bully is refusing to listen. So he takes things up another notch with a shove.

But then the machine guns kick in. Which Superman takes as another act of defiance. Batman is refusing be reasonable, so Superman throws him. Batman gets up again and Superman looks him over, seems the throw wasn't enough either, an even sterner hand might be needed. Another notch. Up through the building and into the signal. A demonstration of how clearly over matched this man is, that his desire for conflict is folly.

"Stay down. If I wanted it, you'd be dead already."

It's the equivalent of "You're surrounded, give yourself up." His patient is wearing out, but he's still trying to be reasonable, to get this mans petty tantrum over with so they can save his mother.

Then comes the Kryponite. From this point on he's fighting for his life, and for his mothers.

The whole thing seems to make sense psychologically, it shows a Superman who tries to talk through problems when he can, but will use force when bullies refuse to listen.

 

[Spider-jedi]

not to be cynical but superman could have just held him in place and spoken to him. even with the bat armor hes no wear close to superman strength wise. it would have been better had batman given him no chance to say anything. start with he krypton so superman knows his fighting for his life and his mothers.

superman to me low keys look's like a bully. if someone who is nowhere as strong as you, calls you out you, and you want to save you mom i doubt you would prolong such a fight.

 

[Aurakles]

not to be cynical but superman could have just held him in place and spoken to him. even with the bat armor hes no wear close to superman strength wise. it would have been better had batman given him no chance to say anything. start with he krypton so superman knows his fighting for his life and his mothers.

superman to me low keys look's like a bully. if someone who is nowhere as strong as you, calls you out you, and you want to save you mom i doubt you would prolong such a fight.

There are a dozen different ways he could have approached Batman, but I don't think the films version was invalid. I think after each push he hoped that it would be over and Batman would listen. Holding him down might have been Superman's next move if it hadn't been for the kryptonite.

Does Superman take what in hindsight would have been the most logical course of action in order to maximise his goals? No.
But few people ever do.
His actions make sense given his personality and situation. He's not in the best place mentally at this moment, he's been hounded by the press, burned in effigy, blaming himself for the deaths of innocents, questioning his own self worth and his mother has been kidnapped.
I'm willing to cut him a little slack in for not being as logical and patient as he could be.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

There are a dozen different ways he could have approached Batman, but I don't think the films version was invalid. I think after each push he hoped that it would be over and Batman would listen. Holding him down might have been Superman's next move if it hadn't been for the kryptonite.

Does Superman take what in hindsight would have been the most logical course of action in order to maximise his goals? No.
But few people ever do.
His actions make sense given his personality and situation. He's not in the best place mentally at this moment, he's been hounded by the press, burned in effigy, blaming himself for the deaths of innocents, questioning his own self worth and his mother has been kidnapped.
I'm willing to cut him a little slack in for not being as logical and patient as he could be.

Yeah I never had a problem with Supes not talking Batman down and never saw why some people did. Superman and Batman don't know each other at this point, they haven't known each other for years like in the comics, so there is animosity there already, but throw in Superman being really down with things, his mother's life being in danger and the lives of innocents weighing heavy on his mind, not to mention a time limit, and I never had a problem with the way he approached this fight.

 

[Spider-jedi]

you are right about there been a dozen ways it could have gone. the movie had already lost me a while back so i just didnt feel what i was supposed to feel in that moment. also i was dissapoint in the fight itself.

Anyway, i hope you guys dont see it as me saying your interpretation is wrong. im gald it worked for you guys. it missed the whole target for me.

 

[Erzengel]

I always felt that that Snyder, Terrio etc. took the square peg that was TDKR was forced it into the round hole that was BvS.

 

[Aurakles]

What I love about the fight is how horrible it is. It isn't some grand event on a magnificent stage, there is nothing noble about it. They fight each other in an crumbling, dilapidated building, two great men ruining each other in a dank and dismal derelict, which is falling apart just as they are. It takes time to show the pain each of them is in, to watch them struggle in the dirt. As they descend through the building, they descend in nobility.
We aren't meant to enjoy it, we're meant to be disgusted by it. Instead of cheering for more, we're meant to want it to be stopped. They pulled a trick on the audience, selling it as an epic gladiator match, then delivering a heart wrenching tragedy of a streetbrawl. The point being that Batman and Superman aren't supposed to fight against each other, but alongside one another.

One of the things I liked about BVS was how it subverted TDKR, borrowing the iconography whilst reversing the meaning.
Instead of Superman being the obedient servant of the government, he is seen as the dangerous threat to the status quo.
Instead of Batman beating Superman being shown as his greatest triumph, it's turned into his greatest failure.

 

[misslane38]

I always felt that that Snyder, Terrio etc. took the square peg that was TDKR was forced it into the round hole that was BvS.

Except by subverting TDKR, as Aurakles and Grant Morrison have pointed out and praised, TDKR was not its original square peg at all and actually redeemed the deconstruction of the TDKR. It fits with Snyder's Decon-Recon approach for the DCEU. He aimed to do what he called the "impossible WATCHMEN," and his approach with TDKR is the same. The problem I see is people fond of TDKR critiquing BvS as an adaptation when that's not its intent.

 

[Erzengel]

I'm an unabashed TDKR fan. However, I understand when it comes to comic book stories that's it's very difficult to do a shot for shot remake, nor is that expected due to constraints as to time, inability to reference previous material, etc. For me, comic book movie adaptions doesn't have to follow or stay true to the original printed material. I understand what Snyder was trying to do, but personally it fell flat and didn't resonate with me.

 

[Aurakles]

Personally, I don't want a direct adaptation of any comic, even my favourites. I'd much rather new stories I've never seen before. By all means borrow ideas, but add something fresh, something original.
Give me something I don't already have on my bookshelf.

 

[SupermanFan]

Personally, I don't want a direct adaptation of any comic, even my favourites. I'd much rather new stories I've never seen before. By all means borrow ideas, but add something fresh, something original.
Give me something I don't already have on my bookshelf.

I agree to an extent; I’m cool with certain stories been directly adapted as one offs for the big screen but I would rather see new stories that take elements from several stories.

 

[Spider-jedi]

the best cbm are the ones that are not directly adapted from the source material.at the same time fans are fickle. if the fans like the movie they say the creative liberties are good if the don't like it they say why did they take creative liberties.

looking back on BvS i honeslty like the people who liked the movie and defend are doing a good job. FYI, i personally dislike the movie a lot. People like misslane38 have done a good job of providing insight and depth that i personally believe the movie failed at delivering. when i read missland38 post it makes me look back at the movie but when i do watch it i feel like misslane38 is doing the job that the filmmaker failed to do or tried to do.

look at joker for example. we do not really see people argue or debate about the message of the movie and its even more dark and gritty than BvS. the movie does it job well.

when we like a film we see paths and connection that make sense, when we dont and someone tries to provide that information it often looks like they are reaching for something that isn't really there.

I once read an article where someone said that BvS is the greatest movie of all time because people still talk and debate the movie and all i could do was roll my eyes. i cant really find the article anymore.

What im saying is that. i believe on one here can really change the mind of another people about the movie.

 

[Aurakles]

Different filmmakers have different styles, different ways of communicating their messages. Snyder veers towards using more symbolism and visual cues than most big Hollywood films, however he is isn't on the far end of the spectrum (imagine if David Lynch made a CBM).
Snyder's films ask audience to use muscles which don't normally get stretched by big blockbusters.
I am not declaring that this is a superior style of filmmaking, however I do believe that it is valid, asking the audience to do some of the work shouldn't equate to failure.

 

[Spider-jedi]

you're right, nothing wrong with asking the audience to do some thinking. Nolan does it all the time and as you mentioned David Lynch as well. But their movies do not cause this amount of division. I dont think ZS is a back filmmaker. He has his strengths and weakness like any other one. there nothing wrong in making a movie that makes people ask the hard tough questions, be it a cbm or any kind of movie.

I think we can all agree that the characters in his movies dont always resonate well. if the issue can be found in multiple movies then we have to look at the common denominator. truth is, its not a big deal like some make it out to be. the improvement will come as he makes more movies

 

[Spider-jedi]

btw im enjoying this discussion. we have very different thoughts on BvS but the discussion has been a good one for me at least. i hope its the same for you

 

[Aurakles]

you're right, nothing wrong with asking the audience to do some thinking. Nolan does it all the time and as you mentioned David Lynch as well. But their movies do not cause this amount of division.

If David Lynch ever made a Superman movie, it would blow MOS/BVS out of the water in terms of controversy.

 

[Aurakles]

Where’s the fun in that?

But I still stand by what I said about Bruce and Clark immediately talking to each other like they’re friends was rushed in order to get to Doomsday. Also, it still makes no sense that Superman would let this unhinged psycho go save Martha when Supes could do it. He should have been like thank you for the gesture Bruce but it’s quicker for me (and I don’t really trust you with this).

The change is less about how Batman see's Superman, and more about how he see's himself.
Deep down, his problem with Superman wasn't that he put the planet in peril, but that he made Bruce feel powerless. The battle of Metropolis made Bruce feel the way he had the night his parents were killed; all his training and resources meant nothing, he was once again forced to standby helpless as people were killed. "the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel"
He tried to convince Alfred and himself that this was a selfless act for the good of humanity, but really it was selfish, he wanted to restore his ego, make himself feel powerful again. He had been seeing Superman as Joe Chill, but in the Martha moment he suddenly sees the roles reversed, he is Joe Chill. At this point he is filled with guilt and shame at what he has become, his desire to exorcise this shame makes him eager to help Superman, to try to redeem himself.

As for Superman, he came to the fight hoping to recruit Batman, his original intention was for them to work together.