BvS Batman v Superman - Reviews Thread [TAG SPOILERS] - Part 2

[Seahawksfan]

No, I don't. I actually like the film. I just don't like the way Batman seems to recklessly murder people.

As I stated earlier, he has always killed in every batman movie to date. This one was no different. He killed for a reason. To obtain kryptonite and to save Martha. He killed in BB to escape the league of shadows fortress, in TDK to save Dent, and in TDKR to stop the nuclear bomb. Similar situations. It made perfect sense.

 

[Will4179]

There were things I liked, and things I didn't like.

Because I enjoyed Man of Steel, the ending of the movie did have an impact on me, but getting to that point was just...I don't know.

While I wish the returning Man of Steel cast got a bit more fleshing out than they did in this movie, I did enjoy what they were given.

Affleck surprised me, but contextually, that isn't saying much since I was never a fan of his and pretty much had a low bar set for his performance. And Gadot makes me excited and happy for the WW fans. Eisenberg was tolerable. Irons delivered, too.

A lot of the early stuff, I have to admit, I struggled to get through, especially with the overly-dramatic music that tried to create an atmosphere of significance to what was going on.

Unfortunately, it just came off as pretentious self-importance to me.

There were a couple of scenes that felt like Snyder completely lifted them from the Nolan trilogy. But I could be wrong.

Not thrilled with the hints towards an Injustice type subplot, nor am I happy that Superman's morality and sanity seem to be tied to Lois Lane, who I'll never be a fan of despite Amy Adams being the only actress able to make me give a damn about the character.

It diminishes his character, in my mind.

But what's done is done, and the skepticism I had going into this film is going to carry over to Justice League.

 

[The Joker]

As I stated earlier, he has always killed in every batman movie to date. This one was no different. He killed for a reason. To obtain kryptonite and to save Martha. He killed in BB to escape the league of shadows fortress, in TDK to save Dent, and in TDKR to stop the nuclear bomb. Similar situations. It made perfect sense.

Unless you're talking about the Burton movies, this was very different. Apples and oranges. Bruce did not kill the League in BB to escape. He didn't intend to kill them at all. He created a distraction to escape. Not a death trap to kill everyone in the room, otherwise he'd be dead himself. They were trying to make him kill a criminal, or they'd kill him. He set off the fireworks to create a distraction to scare them off so he could escape. They had ample chance to haul ass and escape, but chose to stay and fight him despite the obvious growing danger of staying there with the fireworks going more and more out of control. They killed themselves.

In TDK he had just been shot at close range in a suit that was vulnerable to knives and gun fire. Two Face was seconds away from shooting a child. He acted to save a child's life. Not to try and murder Dent.

In TDKR he had minutes to stop a bomb that would nuke the city. What non lethal force options did he have that would allow him to get to that bomb and take it away? Ask Talia to pull her truck over and tell her tumblers to back off?

The only Batman Affleck is comparable to on the killing score is Keaton. And he got a fan backlash for it, too;

It's just a bad characterization of Batman.

 

[Cats]

No, I don't. I actually like the film. I just don't like the way Batman seems to recklessly murder people.

In spite of how much I loved this film, this bit rubbed me the wrong way too. I will forgive however if they explain in JL pt 1 or the solo Batman film that the killing was a temporary response to his overall jadedness towards crime-fighting since the death of Robin, and that he's gradually learning to restrain himself (similar to the story Venom where Bruce locks himself in the cave for a month to wean himself off his drug addiction). At least I can see there's a way to explain this favorably - while till now, I can't find a good reason for Batman '89 to strap a bomb to a man, smile and walk away. Hopefully this new Batman, as brutal as he might be, can still go back to walking that narrow line between hero and criminal, never toppling over to the darker side of things.

 

[Greeneyes]

In spite of how much I loved this film, this bit rubbed me the wrong way too. I will forgive however if they explain in JL pt 1 or the solo Batman film that the killing was a temporary response to his overall jadedness towards crime-fighting since the death of Robin, and that he's gradually learning to restrain himself (similar to the story Venom where Bruce locks himself in the cave for a month to wean himself off his drug addiction). At least I can see there's a way to explain this favorably - while till now, I can't find a good reason for Batman '89 to strap a bomb to a man, smile and walk away. Hopefully this new Batman, as brutal as he might be, can still go back to walking that narrow line between hero and criminal, never toppling over to the darker side of things.

Do they really need to explain this though? I thought it was quite obvious that the film shows why and what has led to him being this way, and then at the end that he is almost back to what we know he should be like.

Films have to let the audience work some stuff out for themselves without having to explain it all. Bruce went cruel, then Bruce came back.

Sorry if I sound harsh, I know where you are coming from Cats

 

[Cats]

Do they really need to explain this though? I thought it was quite obvious that the film shows why and what has led to him being this way, and then at the end that he is almost back to what we know he should be like.

They need to lay it out clearly for the GA, who don't have background knowledge and won't research it. Also, if Batman was 2x more careful in his dealing with goons right after the[BLACKOUT] 'Martha" scene[/BLACKOUT], it would be easier to prove this point. Unfortunately, [BLACKOUT]the Batwing shoots down those guys outside the warehouse, causing their cars to blow up. My husband pointed out that Batman's killing people again, and I was about to explain that maybe he was aiming for their guns (and he has a super good shot?). But when the cars exploded I was like, "Yeah, they're definitely dead" The entire fight in the warehouse, even including KGBeast getting blown up was fine though. He had like two secs to throw off his flame thrower and he didn't.[/BLACKOUT] From here on out, I hope he loads rubber bullets into the Batmobile and Batwing. Snyder can still be faithful to the comics, achieve whatever he wants, and avoid any potential kills that people are going to be unhappy about.

 

[Greeneyes]

They need to lay it out clearly for the GA, who don't have background knowledge and won't research it. Also, if Batman was 2x more careful in his dealing with goons right after the[BLACKOUT] 'Martha" scene[/BLACKOUT], it would be easier to prove this point. Unfortunately, [BLACKOUT]the Batwing shoots down those guys outside the warehouse, causing their cars to blow up. My husband pointed out that Batman's killing people again, and I was about to explain that maybe he was aiming for their guns (and he has a super good shot?). But when the cars exploded I was like, "Yeah, they're definitely dead" The entire fight in the warehouse, even including KGBeast getting blown up was fine though. He had like two secs to throw off his flame thrower and he didn't.[/BLACKOUT] From here on out, I hope he loads rubber bullets into the Batmobile and Batwing. Snyder can still be faithful to the comics, achieve whatever he wants, and avoid any potential kills that people are going to be unhappy about.

Yes, I do agree with you actually Cats, funny thing is the GA probably wont even ask the question of Batman killing as they probably assume that he already does kill here and there anyway. It's more of a problem for us guys haha.

I do forgive him for killing anyone after the Martha scene as he just went into the zone and had to save her, just had to save her no matter what. He didn't have the luxury of time or prep there either. Time was against them and he had to kill unfortunately.

If he hadn't killed or branded people, would we have believed that this was a messed up 'cruel' version of Batman?, and then his seeing the light at the end of the film was a bigger moment. JL will show us a lighter Superman and Batman, I'm almost certain of it.

 

[NateHevens]

I'm "wait-and-see" about Batfleck killing because it could be said that he was pushed over the edge in this film and his decision to not brand Lex was the first sign that he was changing back to the Batman who avoids killing for the most part.

My hope here this is two-fold:

1) The extended edition shows this better
2) We'll see a Batman with a no-kill rule in Suicide Squad and Justice League. I think we already know that the Batmobile in SS doesn't have the gun turrets on it, and regardless of whether it's appearance is in a pre-BvS flashback or in the post-BvS present of SS, it will help to show that he didn't always kill; it was a "special case" for BvS.

Speaking of the extended edition... it's funny, but I'm thinking the extended edition will help to solve some of the problems with BvS. We'll have to see... I actually preordered it (despite not liking BvS), so I'll be seeing it regardless.

If it fails to help the movie, I still won't see it as a complete waste of money because I promised an "extended", spoiler-heavy BvS review when it's released, so if nothing else, it's for my "job" (blogging at Freethought Blogs, which I do get paid for, even if it only amounts to a coffee a month), and I can probably take it off my taxes as a work expense... maybe...

 

[NeoRanger]

I'm "wait-and-see" about Batfleck killing because it could be said that he was pushed over the edge in this film and his decision to not brand Lex was the first sign that he was changing back to the Batman who avoids killing for the most part.

My hope here this is two-fold:

1) The extended edition shows this better
2) We'll see a Batman with a no-kill rule in Suicide Squad and Justice League. I think we already know that the Batmobile in SS doesn't have the gun turrets on it, and regardless of whether it's appearance is in a pre-BvS flashback or in the post-BvS present of SS, it will help to show that he didn't always kill; it was a "special case" for BvS.

I honestly don't think Batman's supposed to really be breaking his "no-kill" rule in this movie. I think Snyder thought it would be cool to arm the Bat-vehicles with a 50 mil and blow some things up and when people called him out on it, he came up with a ridiculous excuse. It's just too inconsistent, it makes no sense to me.

 

[NateHevens]

I honestly don't think Batman's supposed to really be breaking his "no-kill" rule in this movie. I think Snyder thought it would be cool to arm the Bat-vehicles with a 50 mil and blow some things up and when people called him out on it, he came up with a ridiculous excuse. It's just too inconsistent, it makes no sense to me.

Hence my "wait-and-see" stance. I would absolutely expect that of Snyder, which would just be horrible, especially since there's no avoiding the fact that Batfleck killed... a lot. So hopefully we'll be surprised with something stating or showing that it was just a very low place for Batman in BvS...

I'm not sure if it'd be fascinating or terrifying to hear what Snyder thinks of Batman's no-kill rule...

 

[Jaxon]

8/10. Solid movie with editing issues. Best batman to date. Henry Cavill looks like supes. Wish they would've gone a different direction with Lex. Should've been a corporate tycoon lex...

I think this version of Lex was very in line with today's world. Just needed him in that party scene speech to stay more controlled and I think everyone would have enjoyed him.

 

[Jaxon]

Yes, I do agree with you actually Cats, funny thing is the GA probably wont even ask the question of Batman killing as they probably assume that he already does kill here and there anyway. It's more of a problem for us guys haha.

I do forgive him for killing anyone after the Martha scene as he just went into the zone and had to save her, just had to save her no matter what. He didn't have the luxury of time or prep there either. Time was against them and he had to kill unfortunately.

If he hadn't killed or branded people, would we have believed that this was a messed up 'cruel' version of Batman?, and then his seeing the light at the end of the film was a bigger moment. JL will show us a lighter Superman and Batman, I'm almost certain of it.

Honestly if Batman doesn't kill he'd be dead long ago. This no ki thing can only be adhered to by scripting ridiculous situations to make sure he avoids it. How do you take out 12 guys with machine guns, knives, pistols, and a flamethrower with a hostage without some kills. Police raid a dude in a house and people die every other day.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I'm impressed at how this movie receives the "It's a thinking man movie, too deep for you?"
"Not enough jokes for you?"
"Do you expect just because it's a comic book movie or a superhero movie to be all flash and no substance?" defensive reactions.

Let's compare this to a cleverly developed cartoon, like season 4 of Justice League Unlimited, that went deep without going too preachy, those are 20 minutes an episode, 13 episodes, total screen time is longer than 4 hours. If you'd like, take out the last episode, and don't look at it here.

Or simply take these episodes

1. Doomsday Sanction
2. Task Force X
3. Clash
4. Question Authority
5. Flashpoint
6. Panic in the Sky
7. Divided We Fall
8. Epilogue

That's about as long as the theatrical release of BvS, and it has the meat of what that movie wanted to be, done properly.
It makes viewers think, not packed with heavy exposition, not packed with corny dialogue, not packed with stupid moments, villains objectives are straightforward and clear, and live up to what we saw established about them in this arc, government doesn't trust superheroes, Batman agrees that super powered beings being supervised for security purpose without being a jerk, Luthor works on making the public distrust the heroes, it has humor, it has flash, it has substance, and it works fine, it works really really well.

The movie in discussion however, is a mess, it tries to be clever, has some good ideas, but it's not presented properly.
Comparing that cartoon arc to this movie is like comparing two speakers publicly speaking about the same subject, one prepared his/her speech well and presents it in a fun, engaging, and interesting manner, making people think and talk about it and enjoy their time, while the other has his/her cards mixed up, mumbles too often, people either think of leaving or think of finding what is conflicting within the speech they listen to and discuss it with the speaker.

In short; to be simply dark and contain less humor does not automatically make the matter at hand more intelligent, and having a good amount of humor cleverly placed to make the story more engaging does not make the matter a joke and less of a thinking person project.

 

[AnneFan]

Do they really need to explain this though? I thought it was quite obvious that the film shows why and what has led to him being this way, and then at the end that he is almost back to what we know he should be like.

Films have to let the audience work some stuff out for themselves without having to explain it all. Bruce went cruel, then Bruce came back.

Sorry if I sound harsh, I know where you are coming from Cats

Yep. The reasoning is all there, but don't bother arguing the case BvS anymore. It just rolls around in circles. People just say 'yeah, we get the character arc but I still don't like it'. So that's where it begins and ends. I'll be giving the forums here a miss for a while.

 

[NeoRanger]

~snip~

I'll concede that the "too smart for you" and other, similar arguments are **** and needlessly condescending, but I don't quite understand your argument either. For one thing, you are comparing things that aren't comparable. The narrative flow between a movie and standalone episodes of a series -even if there is an arc- isn't the same by definition.

Furthermore, the comparison is needless and if anything, it validates the "too smart for you" complaint. You are making a defensive argument to a complaint that doesn't warrant it, because it's in itself useless. Not only do you validate that complaint, but in the end the comparison only serves to say "I once saw something I thought was better and I'd have liked this movie to be that".

The film can be valued/criticised on its own merits, separately from any other related material. Does it have good ideas? Yes, it does. Is it a mess in execution? Yes, it is. One side is content with the former, one side has a problem with the latter. Both are equally valid views. A movie-viewing experience is, primarily, subjective.

That's not entirely directed at you, by the by, it's just that it's been over a week since the movie's release and there are still complaints from both sides that exist to invalidate the other side's personal tastes, sensibilities and experiences.

And, seriously, "too smart for you" is a **** defence. People should really drop it, it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

 

[Willi Berg]

Seeing this movie again, these are the scenes I like/appreciate more:


-The Lex and the Senator Kryptonite scene. As a Superman fan, I like seeing Lex talking about kryptonite in a serious and sci-fi way. As a Justice League fan, it's then cool to hear him talk about his "metahuman thesis" and that these metahumans have been living among us and are the basis of our myths and legends. It's odd/cool to see that all these fantasy elements are entering this world as "real".

-Lex and Senator Finch in his dad's office scene. Holly Hunter and Jesse Eisenberg are good in this scene and it gives them a chance to play off of each other.

-Ezra Miller's Flash scene- Ezra as Flash makes quite an impression here, it's intriguing, and it sets up a lot of the bigger world of the Justice League, time travel/other dimensions etc.

-The Diana/Bruce scene. This is a good scene for Gal and Ben and to also play off each other and it's great to see that this is really Diana Prince and Bruce Wayne onscreen.

-Lex in the Kryptonian ship scene- again this is more scifi which I like to see, with Kryptonian tech (with Carla Gugino's voice) and the talk of other worlds. I also like the "Communion" scene released because for the same reasons- the sci fi and I am intrigued by how they will depict the New Gods/villains.

-Batman's brutal warehouse fight is of course full of great action.

-Doomsday's introduction is rushed (and his intro reminds of the Newborn in Alien Resurrection) but he does seem hard to kill and powerful/unstoppable.

-Doomsday vs. the Batwing - this is brief but an interesting part of the end act.

-Wonder Woman's appearance and the fight against Doomsday. WW's use of a lot of her weapons, her attitude/expressions, plus the brief glimpse of the team working together is great.



I am still dissatisfied and discontented with Superman in all this. I guess because he and Lois are pretty much on the back foot throughout the movie and have to despair the whole movie. Because the plot called for them to be set upon the whole movie, Superman never really gets his chance to take charge and be in control. Lois too, because she is desperate to be in clear Superman's name. And before you know it

Spoiler

Superman has to sacrifice himself to prove something to others.

Another thing is that Lex is pretty much pulling the strings throughout the whole movie. This may make him a formidable villain, but a "puppet master" type villain role can really be overbearing, such as "Emperor Palpatine" in Star Wars especially in "The Phantom Menace". It really kind of takes over everything, and while he cleverly orchestrates everything it also kind of makes the movie feel contrived.

The movie itself reminded me of "Phantom Menace" - big hype and anticipation, a lot of division and chatter afterwards, and is ultimately a flawed movie with a lot of good/cool elements but not great overall.

 

[Greeneyes]

Yep. The reasoning is all there, but don't bother arguing the case BvS anymore. It just rolls around in circles. People just say 'yeah, we get the character arc but I still don't like it'. So that's where it begins and ends. I'll be giving the forums here a miss for a while.

Best thing to do I think AnneFan is to find the like minded members/friends and ignore as much as possible the other stuff that just leads to as you say, the pointless circles... It's better for the health and happiness I think!

Yeah, I'm having a break from here and most of online too, as I'm going on holiday, so perfect timing really t:

 

[Poni_Boy]

I honestly don't think Batman's supposed to really be breaking his "no-kill" rule in this movie. I think Snyder thought it would be cool to arm the Bat-vehicles with a 50 mil and blow some things up and when people called him out on it, he came up with a ridiculous excuse. It's just too inconsistent, it makes no sense to me.

Yep. It feels 100% like a reactionary response. Same way I feel about Superman bum rushing that guy through a brick wall. It looked "cool" but had no rational thought behind it. I'm waiting to hear his response to that one.

 

[Charlatan]

I think people who want to cling to the "no kill" rule for these heroes need to stick to the cartoons. Snyder isn't a guy who is going to give you heroes who play nice. In his universe the heroes take out the bad guys. Like it or not, that's what we have.

None of that bothered me at all. What did is the fact that Superman left all that Kryptonian tech and Zod's body in the care of humans.

 

[Cats]

Honestly if Batman doesn't kill he'd be dead long ago. This no ki thing can only be adhered to by scripting ridiculous situations to make sure he avoids it. How do you take out 12 guys with machine guns, knives, pistols, and a flamethrower with a hostage without some kills. Police raid a dude in a house and people die every other day.

That's why I'm more understanding towards him when it involves hand to hand combat, especially those involving multiple assailants. What I feel they could've avoided is the [BLACKOUT]Batwing kill scene[/BLACKOUT]. That's the only thing that I felt was out of place. I can even understand why he had to use a machine gun in the Knightmare sequence, and the Batmobile chase was pretty much the same number of casualties as the Nolan films. Nothing to gawk at.

 

[Charlatan]

That's why I'm more understanding towards him when it involves hand to hand combat, especially those involving multiple assailants. What I feel they could've avoided is the [BLACKOUT]Batwing kill scene[/BLACKOUT]. That's the only thing that I felt was out of place. I can even understand why he had to use a machine gun in the Knightmare sequence, and the Batmobile chase was pretty much the same number of casualties as the Nolan films. Nothing to gawk at.

I understand fully why he did that.

Spoiler

he was on the clock. running out of time to save her. He didn't have time to clear the exterior surgically then get to her inside before her time was up. If she was lost then he thought his vision would come true.

 

[Abudefduf]

I know I've already said this, but I really can't get behind the "oh but Batman from now will not kill anymore because Superman killing Doomsday made him see the error of his ways" excuse, which still makes zero sense to me btw. XD

Comics Batman refusing to kill certain enemies of his is already problematic enough, but at least we know where he's coming from and to a certain extent we can even empathize with his choice. Plus it makes for good drama, if nothing else.

But Snyder's Batman has now officially killed those stupid Luthor's henchmen (and who knows how many others off-screen), he has blood on his hands. There's no way he can spare mass-murderers and psychos like the Joker or Zsasz without coming off like a huge hypocritical a**hole. Unless he really wants to argue that the Joker is somehow less deserving of death than those thugs were, lol.

It's truly a mind-boggingly careless decision they made here, and I have no idea how they're gonna write themselves out of this hole.

 

[Charlatan]

I know I've already said this, but I really can't get behind the "oh but Batman won't kill anymore because Superman killing Doomsday made him see the error of his ways" (which I'm still not sure how it makes any sense XD) excuse.

Comics Batman refusing to kill certain enemies of his is already problematic enough, but at least we know where he's coming from and to a certain extent we can even empathize with his choice. Plus it makes for good drama, if nothing else.

But Snyder's Batman has now officially killed those stupid Luthor's henchmen (and who knows how many others off-screen), he has blood on his hands. There's no way he can spare mass-murderers and psychos like the Joker or Zsasz without coming off like a huge hypocritical a**hole. Unless he wants to argue that the Joker is somehow less deserving of death than those thugs were, lol.

I have no idea how they're gonna write themselves out of this hole.

It's easy in the movies. you probably won't need them to live so you can write another story with them in it in 6 months. as for who lives or dies it depends on the criminal. If they surrender then fine they go to jail. If they want to go out with a bang then they get whatever solution works.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

i know i've already said this, but i really can't get behind the "oh but batman will not not kill anymore because superman killing doomsday made him see the error of his ways" excuse, which still makes zero sense to me btw. Xd

comics batman refusing to kill certain enemies of his is already problematic enough, but at least we know where he's coming from and to a certain extent we can even empathize with his choice. Plus it makes for good drama, if nothing else.

But snyder's batman has now officially killed those stupid luthor's henchmen (and who knows how many others off-screen), he has blood on his hands. There's no way he can spare mass-murderers and psychos like the joker or zsasz without coming off like a huge hypocritical a**hole. Unless he really wants to argue that the joker is somehow less deserving of death than those thugs were, lol.

It's truly a mind-boggingly careless decision they made there, and i have no idea how they're gonna write themselves out of this hole.

this.

 

[NeoRanger]

I think people who want to cling to the "no kill" rule for these heroes need to stick to the cartoons. Snyder isn't a guy who is going to give you heroes who play nice. In his universe the heroes take out the bad guys. Like it or not, that's what we have.

None of that bothered me at all. What did is the fact that Superman left all that Kryptonian tech and Zod's body in the care of humans.

As a general rule I don't mind, if the framework of the story supports it. That's why I tolerated Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel, even though I'd definitely had ended it a different way. I wasn't crazy about it, but at least it made sense in that story.

The problem with Batman is that the framework doesn't quite support his killing. It's inconsistent. He kills when in the vehicles, but he goes out of his way to not kill during brawls. If this Batman really didn't have a no-kill rule, that brawl in the warehouse when he goes to Martha would've ended in 10 seconds. He had every opportunity to pull a Big Daddy on them. He didn't. He didn't shoot anyone, he stabbed one guy in the shoulder and the only casualties were the two guys with the grenade, which was more of a "fall on your own sword" thing.

This Batman doesn't kill. Except when he does. It makes no sense.