All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a classic example of Roger Ebert's Idiot Plot . From Mr. Ebert - "I can forgive and even embrace an Idiot Plot in its proper place (consider Astaire and Rogers in Top Hat). But when the characters have depth and their decisions have consequences, I grow restless when their misunderstandings could be ended by words that the screenplay refuses to allow them to utter."
So...like a 2.5/4 or 3/4?
Assuming he was still alive and acknowledged the "depth" and "decisions have consequences", but grew restless of the movie's theme where everyone was constantly misunderstanding and refused to see the other side because of how so far gone into their respective opinions
 
The fight is not justified because Superman tries to reason with Batman.

The fight is justified within the story because Batman, who believes he has justification to hurt Superman, is attempting to hurt Superman. Superman's options are then limited. He can try to use force to make Batman stop attacking him and survive, or he can not use force and die, and Martha will also die.

The fight is going to happen anyway, because Batman believes Superman's existence is a problem.

Superman doesn't have the stamina to fight and talk at the same time? It's either, or?
 
It didn't sit right with me because it fell in line with the Hollywood cliche where people try to convey an idea by using the worst phrases imaginable. "You don't understand!" is a line that's often used, and Superman uses it as well. It's a phrase that conveys no meaning and its only use is to make it look like Superman tried, when he really didn't. It doesn't sit right with me because the screenwriter used a lazy trope to justify the fight.

The first thing Superman says is "Bruce, please, I was wrong. You have to listen to me. Lex wants-" and then Batman springs his sonic trap.

THEN he says "You don't understand. There's no time!"
 
Superman doesn't have the stamina to fight and talk at the same time? It's either, or?

Why does it matter? Batman is not listening and is trying to kill Superman, so Superman feels the need to physically stop him.

What we see is cinematic shorthand for this concept.

There's no screenwriting rule or story rule or character rule that says Superman has to keep pleading with Batman while Batman is clearly not listening and the intent of the scene is that Batman isn't going to listen.
 
I think the best way to approach this film was to just do a freaking Man of Steel sequel w/ Batman in it. I think that might have been the original idea, but they fell in love with the idea of Batman vs. Superman, that they developed the whole film around it, and made it a set up movie to Justice League.

The thing is the whole Lex Luthor character in this franchise was a lose-lose for DC. Either you put him in the sequel, and everyone complains "oh, another Lex movie with kryponite" just like Superman 1,2,4,Returns. 4/6 movies featured this plot, its boring... On the other hand, if you do a Brainaic movie or Metallo or someone new, then you'll hear "when are they going to do a Lex Luthor ! How can you have two Superman movies and not address Lex !".

So the best thing to do, in my opinion would have Man of Steel 2 w/ Lex Luthor, but have Batman as a supporting character. I like the idea of Batman in the background. If you look at the root of the character, Batman was an obsessed character that did not care about anything else in his life but his obsession for stopping crime. He did not care about his wealth, he did not care about relationships, he did not care about his life in a way - all he cared about was his obsessions. Now, if the film went the direction of Bruce really thinking Superman had to go, and have him in the background of the film, training his ass off, learning about kryponite.

The focus of the movie was Superman vs. Lex. Lex being a 'hero' for cleaning up and helping Metropolis after that destruction from the first film. Lex being completely jealous of Superman. Lex in his own mind believes he should be helmed as the hero of Metropolis and his upbringing of his father drilling it in his head that he is the savior of Metropolis, only to realize his dreams were crushed, and everyone hailed Superman as the hero he thought he was suppose to be.

Superman's main focus is not Lex, is not Batman - those guys are obsessed with him - his story is focusing on himself. In the first movie, he discovered who he was. This movie should be about focusing on what he wants. His story should be on the focus of adapting into he Clark Kent role and his relationship evolving with Lois Lane. Honestly, this movie should be a love story between the two. And not THAT LOVE STORY FROM SUPERMAN RETURNS !!!! I mean, a real one, where they have issues, complications.

While Superman is trying to figure his relationship out, and his place in the world as a savior, BOOM - Batman sneak attacks his ass. The thing is Batman is trying our different methods of beating Superman, he's not even sure if the kryponite will work, so he has like four different elements - and in the first battle, Batman loses, but he discovers the kryponite is the fourth element that is effective, which ultimately saves his life from getting killed by Superman, so he barely escapes, but discovers the kryponite is the element that can be used to take him out.

With Lex, anyone but Jesse Eisenberg. He looks like he was ripped right out from a Schumacher Batman film and threw into BvS world. I couldn't stand it. Someone that will take a much more serious position on the role.

No Doomsday. No Wonder Woman. No team up stuff at the end. You had a giant epic first film. The second movie should always and I mean ALWAYS take a step down and make it a more character driven personal film. Star Wars, big epic Death Star Battle. Empire Strikes Back, much more personal film, the climax was about the main characters escaping a small city. That wasn't some epic giant battle scene, but a more personal film that proved effective.

I would have the second and final Batman battle where Batman kicks the crap out of him, and nearly kills him, he tries to kill him, but then the night ends and the sun appears, giving Superman more power to get through the kryponite and end up beating Batman. But the moment Superman could kill Batman, but chooses not to, he shows compassion to the enemy and this inspires Batman to know that Superman is legit. The whole character arc of Batman is he finally decides to KILL, he feels he has to kill this one alien in order to save the planet. And he justifies it by he's not killing another human being, but an alien that doesn't belong here. Once he sort of accepts that, he tries to kill Superman, but Superman beats him - thus showing compassion and letting Batman go. This moment really affects Bruce quite a bit as he realized he compromised his morals of no killing and it wasn't a good thing, and he became the one thing he feared the most, a murderer. The 'thank you' scene would be Batman revealing Lex evil plan toward Superman that would nearly taken him out, so Superman has the knowledge of Lex plan of attack, and the final climax would be Superman showdown with Metallo, that Lex created from a deal with Wayne Corporation Tech Division.

Those would the action scenes I have in my head, but overall, its a story of Superman struggles with humanity and how this will affect his personal life of people trying to kill him. Earlier on, Superman reveals to Lois that he can't be with her due to the fact that the only thing that could really be his kryponite is her. That if his enemies found his secret, they would come after Lois instead of Clark. He realizes this through Batman / Lex. I wouldnt have had them together at the end. Save it for the sequels. End it on a 'damn' note.

Casting Amy Adams really a bad choice, imo. They chose her because she's likable and she's famous - but I dont think Snyder understood the character. Lois was suppose to be a fire ant. Thats why the relationship between Clark and Lois was always so damn interesting, because they were opposites. Clark was the good ole boy, the innocent one - where as Lois was the fiesty, dont take no crap attitude. It makes the dynamic of the characters interesting and their love story so good because Lois does settle with Superman. Once again, Snyder DOES NOT RESPECT THE SOURCE MATERIAL. Lois needed to be a *****. Amy Adams is just too sweet. I would have went with Olivia Wilde or Zoe Saldana. Metallo maybe Adam Driver ? Lex, the Billy Zane, Bryan Cranston would be too obvious. I like that they tried something new with Eisenberg, but it just failed. They tried and didnt succeed. I like the idea of someone like Denzel Washington, maybe. Someone not really into comic book roles. Maybe Jon Hamm would be interesting in that role. Or Arnie Hammer. And for Batman, I liked Affleck in the role, but I would have never casted him, lol....
Jake Gyllenhaal would be an interesting Bruce Wayne after seeing him in Nightcrawler and seeing how he can transform into a role.​

I could write out Metallo & Lex and all that, but I wrote too much already.
 
Pretty good read.
I think the best way to approach this film was to just do a freaking Man of Steel sequel w/ Batman in it. I think that might have been the original idea, but they fell in love with the idea of Batman vs. Superman, that they developed the whole film around it, and made it a set up movie to Justice League.
Outside of the Knightmare scene, which even that could be replaced with something else, I'm still of the mind that all of the DoJ teases could have been taken out and it would still be a Batman vs Superman movie.

...if you do a Brainaic movie or Metallo or someone new, then you'll hear "when are they going to do a Lex Luthor ! How can you have two Superman movies and not address Lex !"
I think the one complaint I can see is "Ultron did it first", but very certain we would be fine with different villains.

So the best thing to do, in my opinion would have Man of Steel 2 w/ Lex Luthor, but have Batman as a supporting character. I like the idea of Batman in the background.
Ties nicely with the approach and it certainly makes Batman that much more of the terror in the night. I recall the Gotham Knight movie did something like that.

The focus of the movie was Superman vs. Lex. Lex being a 'hero' for cleaning up and helping Metropolis after that destruction from the first film... only to realize his dreams were crushed, and everyone hailed Superman as the hero he thought he was suppose to be.
You definitely read up on the rumor mill.

While Superman is trying to figure his relationship out, and his place in the world as a savior, BOOM - Batman sneak attacks his ass. The thing is Batman is trying out different methods of beating Superman, he's not even sure if the kryponite will work, so he has like four different elements - and in the first battle, Batman loses, but he discovers the kryponite is the fourth element that is effective, which ultimately saves his life from getting killed by Superman, so he barely escapes, but discovers the kryponite is the element that can be used to take him out.
There's just something really Schumacher about this, even though I guess it'd be something like The Winter Soldier trying to take Cap out.
 
Ok...is there an equation for how big a chunk of the audience it has to be?

It didn't sit right with me, either.

It's not supposed to sit right with you.

It's essentially a movie where the conflict revolves around two men and their failure to communicate effectively with each other.

You can explain the intent behind the scene all you'd like, but it doesn't matter as it was poorly executed. Surely you can understand this, if not agree.

You say Batman "clearly isn't listening"? That actually isn't so clear, as Superman makes only one brief attempt to actually explain the situation before he's cut off, and he responds by silently throwing Batman around like a rag doll and punching him through walls for no reason. You say the whole conflict revolves around two men's failure to communicate? There's no reason for Superman to not effectively communicate in this scenario, other than "we need them to fight".

Watch the first part before Batman pulls out the kryptonite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58KXLPE7M_s&t=135s

Superman tore through the traps like paper. As far as he knew he wasn't in any danger or fighting for his life. He could have easily made another attempt to actually explain what was going on, but he chose to further antagonize the person he needs to talk to. His mother will be dead soon, yet the film-makers chose to show this character silently beating the one guy he needs help from instead of any actual, satisfying attempt to talk to him. It's a flimsy, contrived excuse to get to the titular fight, and your explanation does not justify the execution of this concept.

I'm not sure what "equation" you are looking for, but I can promise you that one brief attempt followed by punchy punch punch does not fit within those parameters. Again, I really hope you can recognize this as it's fairly obvious why this scene doesn't sit well with people, and it's not because of the reasons you have listed.
 
Last edited:
Actually, why does Superman even stay around to fight after Batman attacks him? I know what Lex told him but once Superman commits to the fight he probably knows it will either end with Batman dead or seriously injured (he doesn't know about the kryptonite). So why would fighting Batman help Superman at all. He should of just flown off and searched for Martha himself. How does engaging Batman help his predicament at this time? One could say that he was trying to encompacitate him but I don't see that at all and how does he know he can encompacitate Batman where he is still able to help. Just doesn't make sense.
 
The Martha scene was an otherwise poorly executed scene in an otherwise amazing movie.
 
The Martha scene is a poorly executed scene in a poorly executed movie.
 
It's a nice microcosm of everything wrong with the movie.
 
It's interesting how, in the theatrical cut, we never even see Clark say a word to his mother. Audiences were to either rely on assumed empathy or knowledge from MoS for these emotional beats regarding Superman's mother to work. You'll note that both of these aren't exactly the hallmark of good story-telling.
 
The knowledge that the audience has is the same knowledge Superman has.

So he knows how unhinged Batman is? He knows that he's so far gone that he won't listen to reason?

If that's the case, why bother trying to explain anything? Why not immediately put him down? Why waste time trying to explain when he could either kill or subdue Batman without a second thought?

Superman and the audience both can see, based on the traps Batman has sprung and the physical attacks he is making that Batman probably won't listen to reason, and is in fact, attacking Superman.

Um...no. What those traps demonstrate is that Batman sees Superman as an adversary and is prepared to fight him. They reveal little to nothing about his mentally/emotionally damaged state.

The fact that they were ridiculously ineffectual proves that Superman could've stopped the fight at any time, held Batman down, and tried to explain the situation.

I wish I could get ahold of the mathematical equation that reveals when a character has tried hard enough to reason with someone who is trying to kill them before resorting to other methods.

Well when you find it, let me know.

Because quite often, in the real world, when someone refuses to reason, that's when things get ugly and confrontations happen.

In the real world, Batman versus Superman is a newborn bunny versus an Olympic level athlete wearing steel-toed boots. And that's being generous.

Superman was in full control of the fight until he was exposed to Krypfonite. He had plenty of time to actually try and explain what was going on.

Of course I forget that this character is Superman, and must therefore act in a prescribed manner set forth by the comics...

...where he also often only tries to reason once or twice and then does his best to end the physical fight he's part of before trying to reason again.

The comics doing stupid **** worthy of criticism doesn't excuse the movie from doing stupid **** worthy of criticism. Not that I'm not certain that a lot of those comics handled it a LOT better, but stilly
 
I think it was Boom that made a great point about how weird it is for Clark to refer to his mom as "Martha". It would've made more sense to say "Save my mom/mother"

The Martha scene is dumb. I still love BVS though.
 
So he knows how unhinged Batman is? He knows that he's so far gone that he won't listen to reason?

If that's the case, why bother trying to explain anything? Why not immediately put him down? Why waste time trying to explain when he could either kill or subdue Batman without a second thought?



Um...no. What those traps demonstrate is that Batman sees Superman as an adversary and is prepared to fight him. They reveal little to nothing about his mentally/emotionally damaged state.

The fact that they were ridiculously ineffectual proves that Superman could've stopped the fight at any time, held Batman down, and tried to explain the situation.



Well when you find it, let me know.



In the real world, Batman versus Superman is a newborn bunny versus an Olympic level athlete wearing steel-toed boots. And that's being generous.

Superman was in full control of the fight until he was exposed to Krypfonite. He had plenty of time to actually try and explain what was going on.



The comics doing stupid **** worthy of criticism doesn't excuse the movie from doing stupid **** worthy of criticism. Not that I'm not certain that a lot of those comics handled it a LOT better, but stilly

+1 ---> Boy Scout
 
WB has added another movie to the DCEU slate... a Black Adam movie.
 
It's interesting how, in the theatrical cut, we never even see Clark say a word to his mother. Audiences were to either rely on assumed empathy or knowledge from MoS for these emotional beats regarding Superman's mother to work. You'll note that both of these aren't exactly the hallmark of good story-telling.

No. He still has the discussion with his mother in the theatrical cut.
 
He doesn't say a word in that scene.

Well I thought his acting was well enough to convey his emotions without saying a word. I do get your point doe.

However this Black Adam news doesnt make me happy. I have no idea WTF they think they are doing making a seperate movie for BA. They totally wouldnt have done that if it wasnt the Rock playing that role.
 
Borys Kit ‏@Borys_Kit 6 minil y a 6 minutes
The plan is for the first SHAZAM! movie not to have Black Adam as the villain although he would/could appear in one down the road.
 
That's what I was figuring. Almost like the Scorpion King.
 
Just a thought if they do go with a Black Adam movie, and the Deadshot movie happens. Then if you include Sirens and Suicide Squad the DCEU will have 4 different villain based franchises in the DCEU.
 
Talking villains, I know this won't happen, but I'd like to see buildup to a Secret Society movie. Doesn't have to be big or Legion of Doom sized. I'm thinking what the size was in the Justice League animated series, or even the Injustice Gang.

Could be a smaller scale Suicide Squad fighting a few members of the League, similar to the cartoon. As for who led...if he's introduced on The Flash at some point, I think Grodd could do it, but I wouldn't want to see Luthor as the leader. Of the Legion, maybe, but not the Secret Society.

kids-show-05.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,294
Messages
22,081,667
Members
45,881
Latest member
lucindaschatz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"