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

[Aquafinn90]

He was raised as a normal kid by normal parents. Compassion is something that needs a good reason? It was within his power, he wanted to help.

As for mankind... Earth is his home now. He was hammered by Kents, that people will reject him out of fear. He has to earn humanity's trust. There's also extended rant of Jor-El, they will race behind you bla-bla-bla... I think, it's enough.

yeah why is this even a question I'm kind of baffled?
He's a good person who knows that he can do good with his powers... This is like asking why any protagonist in any movie ever is a good person.
He's shown saving the bus with his classmates on it at a young age, because he knows he can do it, so why let them drown? This is reflected later in the conversation he has with Pa. Why does there have to be a "reason" that he's doing good?

But to add to that, he clearly feels guilt over NOT saving his father from the tornado, despite it being his father's instructions not to save him.
It's kind of the opposite of Batman, who was powerless to save his parents as they were gunned down in front of him.
Superman had the power to save his father, yet made the choice not to, based on his father's instructions. It's at that point that he beings his travels around the world saving people, and then instantly disappearing.

 

[OutOfBoose]

yeah why is this even a question I'm kind of baffled?
He's a good person who knows that he can do good with his powers... This is like asking why any protagonist in any movie ever is a good person.
He's shown saving the bus with his classmates on it at a young age, because he knows he can do it, so why let them drown? This is reflected later in the conversation he has with Pa. Why does there have to be a "reason" that he's doing good?

But to add to that, he clearly feels guilt over NOT saving his father from the tornado, despite it being his father's instructions not to save him.
It's kind of the opposite of Batman, who was powerless to save his parents as they were gunned down in front of him.
Superman had the power to save his father, yet made the choice not to, based on his father's instructions. It's at that point that he beings his travels around the world saving people, and then instantly disappearing.

Good point.

 

[Flint Marko]

yeah why is this even a question I'm kind of baffled?
He's a good person who knows that he can do good with his powers... This is like asking why any protagonist in any movie ever is a good person.
He's shown saving the bus with his classmates on it at a young age, because he knows he can do it, so why let them drown? This is reflected later in the conversation he has with Pa. Why does there have to be a "reason" that he's doing good?

Because it would actually help humanize him and make Clark into an interesting three dimensional character with tactile motivations. As it stands he saves people just because.... I don't know, we're supposed to assume he's a good person? I don't need to be spoon fed nor do I need a bunch of exposition, I just want to understand why the character is doing what he's doing. That isn't a lot to ask, as a matter of fact it's a very simple question that most movies answer in some capacity, but apparently in this instance it's baffling.
If this wasn't Superman and instead an entirely original character, I have a feeling the "just because" answer wouldn't be satisfying for a lot of you.

But to add to that, he clearly feels guilt over NOT saving his father from the tornado, despite it being his father's instructions not to save him.
It's kind of the opposite of Batman, who was powerless to save his parents as they were gunned down in front of him.
Superman had the power to save his father, yet made the choice not to, based on his father's instructions. It's at that point that he beings his travels around the world saving people, and then instantly disappearing.

How does he demonstrate guilt over not saving his father? I'm asking because I don't recall any specific instance of this, but I'm not saying it's incorrect.

 

[The Joker]

Here's something, you animals!

During the whole Batman/Superman fight. Right before Bats tries to murder him for the second time with a spear (i think bashing a sink over his head so violently would be the first time he tried)...he says this to him. Which is something i forgot, everytime a defender brings up how Bats is shocked that Superman has a mother he cares for.

"I bet your parents taught you that you mean something. That you're here for a reason. My parents taught me a different lesson. Dying in the gutter. For no reason at all."

So he assumes that Superman has parents who taught him something positive. Something that made him believe in himself.

So why does every single defender ignore this dialogue??? It's always the same "He just thought of him as a destructive alien who is completely alone, with no feelings! When he sees him calling out for his mother, it not only reminds him of his own, it shocks him that he cares for someone!"

You can say, maybe Bruce figured they were dead. Is he talking about his Kryptonian parents or Earth parents? I don't know. But he sure as hell assumes that Supes had a mom and dad who invested some time into their child, to teach Clark something.

To me this kinda proves that his shock and decision to not spear him had NOTHING to do with any of that s**t. It's all about the name Martha and how it reminded him of his mom. Or he thought he was talking about Martha Wayne. Which is another hole! During the courtroom explosion, Wayne sees some papers with writing "You let your family die". He assumes it's Superman toying with him after a night where Supes threatens him to quit being Batman. He furiously looks at the television where they're showing the explosion "caused by Superman". It fuels Bruce to quickly act like a hot-head without thinking, to train for the big fight, putting kryptonite on a spear.

So what the f**k?!!?

WHY IS HE SCREAMING AT SUPERMAN "HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT NAME? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?". If he and the rest of the world know that your parents died when you were a kid, then that's how he knows that name. Plus in this moment your stupid ass believes that Supes wrote you goofy letters about mommy and daddy dying. If Clark was talking about your mom Bruce, that's how. Everyone knows their names were Thomas and Martha. They were billionaires like you, dumbass.

Supes: You're letting him kill Martha!
Bats: What does that mean!? Why did you say that name!?
Supes: Find him! Save Martha!
Bats: Why did you say that name? Martha. Why did you say that name?
Lois: Stop! Please, stop!
Bats: WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME!?
Lois: It's his mother's name!...It's his mother's name..

That's the exact bit of dialogue. Here's a controversial opinion: I prefer listening to Bale scream WHERE'S THE TRIGGER!? countless times over this nonsense.

As you can imagine, I just put on the Martha scene and now it's coming to the warehouse. Which is the only true Batman scene in the whole movie..

He literally just grabbed a thug's gun while it was going off like apes**t does a rotation around the room trying to kill the rest of the thugs. They duck. Don't think anyone got hit but INTENT PEOPLE! INTENT! I may ignore it because he's trying to save MARTHA! (why did you say that name!? ) OK he could have f**ked them up another way.

Badass scene. Reminds me of Winter Soldier fights. Everytime Bats gets hit, stabbed or shot in this movie i burst out laughing at his reaction. It's that deep robotic voice going OH!! Ahh, at least something is funny in this movie.

Boy, KGBeast is a bad actor. Well, scene is over. At least Bats did the right thing at the end of this scene. Killed a dude to save Martha (what does that mean!? ) I guess, that erases all the dumb **** he did right!?

 

[The Joker]

yeah why is this even a question I'm kind of baffled?
He's a good person who knows that he can do good with his powers... This is like asking why any protagonist in any movie ever is a good person.
He's shown saving the bus with his classmates on it at a young age, because he knows he can do it, so why let them drown? This is reflected later in the conversation he has with Pa. Why does there have to be a "reason" that he's doing good?

Because every good hero has a profound reason to put on a costume and risk their lives. It's incredibly boring to say they just do it because they are a good person.

But to add to that, he clearly feels guilt over NOT saving his father from the tornado, despite it being his father's instructions not to save him.
It's kind of the opposite of Batman, who was powerless to save his parents as they were gunned down in front of him.
Superman had the power to save his father, yet made the choice not to, based on his father's instructions. It's at that point that he beings his travels around the world saving people, and then instantly disappearing.

That sounds like a bad rip off of Spider-Man's origin. He didn't stop the burglar that wound up killing his Uncle when he could have. But Spidey's origin was far more profound and emotional.

The tornado/Pa Kent scene is one of the stupidest and most criticized elements of that movie.

 

[Aquafinn90]

Because it would actually help humanize him and make Clark into an interesting three dimensional character with tactile motivations. As it stands he saves people just because.... I don't know, we're supposed to assume he's a good person? I don't need to be spoon fed nor do I need a bunch of exposition, I just want to understand why the character is doing what he's doing. That isn't a lot to ask, as a matter of fact it's a very simple question that most movies answer in some capacity, but apparently in this instance it's baffling.
If this wasn't Superman and instead an entirely original character, I have a feeling the "just because" answer wouldn't be satisfying for a lot of you.


How does he demonstrate guilt over not saving his father? I'm asking because I don't recall any specific instance of this, but I'm not saying it's incorrect.

But that's like asking why Finn in TFA decides to renounce his life of being a Stormtrooper. Or why Obi-Wan Kenobi or any of the other jedi do what they do, or why Anakin as a small child decides to choose this very dangerous life in order to help people. In fact, I believe there is even a line in TPM where he literally says something along the lines of helping people is the right thing to do.

As for him being guilty over not saving his father I picked that up immediately in the cemetery scene in MOS when he speaks to Lois. I forget what the line is something about "I chose to let my father die, because he was too afraid to see how the world would accept me" something something." Aside from that, as stated above, I think his actions of traveling the world and saving people after his father's death validates that enough as well.

 

[Aquafinn90]

Because every good hero has a profound reason to put on a costume and risk their lives. It's incredibly boring to say they just do it because they are a good person.



That sounds like a bad rip off of Spider-Man's origin. He didn't stop the burglar that wound up killing his Uncle when he could have. But Spidey's origin was far more profound and emotional.

The tornado/Pa Kent scene is one of the stupidest and most criticized elements of that movie.

Im aware of that, however not by me. I'll never understand that criticism.
Just because you say its "stupid" doesn't make it stupid.

This movie for some reason, is being criticized on levels that I've never seen any other movie criticized for, ever. And if I ever bring it up, the response I get was "oh well the movie was "fun" so its okay that it had that issue" or something absurd.

 

[Flint Marko]

But that's like asking why Finn in TFA decides to renounce his life of being a Stormtrooper. Or why Obi-Wan Kenobi or any of the other jedi do what they do, or why Anakin as a small child decides to choose this very dangerous life in order to help people. In fact, I believe there is even a line in TPM where he literally says something along the lines of helping people is the right thing to do.

I only saw TFA and the other Star Wars films once so I can't speak to the details of each character, but it's ridiculous that you're trying to normalize a lack of motivation for a film's titular hero. You're doing the film maker's work for them if you go into a movie and just assume things about the character based on pre-existing knowledge.

As for him being guilty over not saving his father I picked that up immediately in the cemetery scene in MOS when he speaks to Lois. I forget what the line is something about "I chose to let my father die, because he was too afraid to see how the world would accept me" something something." Aside from that, as stated above, I think his actions of traveling the world and saving people after his father's death validates that enough as well.

But he was saving people even before his father died. He had been doing that his whole life. They established that as part of his character. So him continuing to save people isn't rooted in feeling guilty over his father's death.
As for the line about feeling guilty, well, that's kind of my whole problem with this movie. He'll have a line or two where he'll say he's conflicted about something, but it doesn't actually inform the story.

Im aware of that, however not by me. I'll never understand that criticism.
Just because you say its "stupid" doesn't make it stupid.

This movie for some reason, is being criticized on levels that I've never seen any other movie criticized for, ever. And if I ever bring it up, the response I get was "oh well the movie was "fun" so its okay that it had that issue" or something absurd.

I guess you haven't really been paying attention. The lack of "fun" isn't why this movie is being criticized, although it certainly is a part of it. I mean at the end of the day if you're going to make a movie that isn't particularly coherent or well-written, at the least make it fun.

 

[The Joker]

Im aware of that, however not by me. I'll never understand that criticism.
Just because you say its "stupid" doesn't make it stupid.

Conversely just because you say it's good or it works doesn't make it so either right?

But the fact is that scene is highly criticized. And rightfully so.

This movie for some reason, is being criticized on levels that I've never seen any other movie criticized for, ever. And if I ever bring it up, the response I get was "oh well the movie was "fun" so its okay that it had that issue" or something absurd.

I don't know if you're new to the internet, or just don't read many forums, but this is far from being the first movie to be heavily criticized. Plenty of bad CBMs get this level of criticism, or worse even. The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Green Lantern, Wolverine Origins etc. They all get hammered.

 

[Predator jp]

Pa Kent and Clark were standing in the exact same spot, Clark could've easily fetch the dog and come back without using his superpowers. i hated that scene, it made Pa Kent stupid.

 

[Aquafinn90]

Conversely just because you say it's good or it works doesn't make it so either right?

But the fact is that scene is highly criticized. And rightfully so.



I don't know if you're new to the internet, or just don't read many forums, but this is far from being the first movie to be heavily criticized. Plenty of bad CBMs get this level of criticism, or worse even. The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Green Lantern, Wolverine Origins etc. They all get hammered.

Oh I agree, just because I think it's good does not make it "good"

I don't mean heavily criticized in general. I mean the particular things about this movie that are being criticized.

 

[Aquafinn90]

Pa Kent and Clark were standing in the exact same spot, Clark could've easily fetch the dog and come back without using his superpowers. i hated that scene, it made Pa Kent stupid.

...which is exactly the point. He made a decision, well they both made their decisions, and now Clark has to live with that.

 

[Aquafinn90]

I only saw TFA and the other Star Wars films once so I can't speak to the details of each character, but it's ridiculous that you're trying to normalize a lack of motivation for a film's titular hero. You're doing the film maker's work for them if you go into a movie and just assume things about the character based on pre-existing knowledge.



But he was saving people even before his father died. He had been doing that his whole life. They established that as part of his character. So him continuing to save people isn't rooted in feeling guilty over his father's death.
As for the line about feeling guilty, well, that's kind of my whole problem with this movie. He'll have a line or two where he'll say he's conflicted about something, but it doesn't actually inform the story.




I guess you haven't really been paying attention. The lack of "fun" isn't why this movie is being criticized, although it certainly is a part of it. I mean at the end of the day if you're going to make a movie that isn't particularly coherent or well-written, at the least make it fun.

part 1:
I don't think theres a lack of motivation, as stated. I'm just pointing out that you could ask why any person in any movie is doing good things, hell you could ask that in life in general. I don't think there needs to be a motivation for being a "good" person. Thats absurd.
Why did Betty throw a surprise party for Sue and get her a really expensive gift even though she didn't deserve any of those things? Because she's a good persons and she wanted to.
Why did Howard jump in front of a car to save a woman that fell in the middle of the street that he didn't know?
Because he's a good person and felt that was the right thing to do.

Part 2:
Okay, fair enough. So since nobody "told him that he should save people" means that he clearly has "no motivations for saving anybody?"
How do his parents telling him that he should use his powers for good make his character arch ANY more interesting?

Part 3: I was merely using that as an example. When I pull examples from other movies that have the same "issues"(which in fact are really not issues at all) people just excuse them because they were "fun" or "well they had a more compelling story" etc etc. I wasn't particularly making an example out of the lack of "fun"(which, how does one measure that? because I thought this movie was tons of fun)

 

[OutOfBoose]

part 1:
I don't think theres a lack of motivation, as stated. I'm just pointing out that you could ask why any person in any movie is doing good things, hell you could ask that in life in general. I don't think there needs to be a motivation for being a "good" person. Thats absurd.
Why did Betty throw a surprise party for Sue and get her a really expensive gift even though she didn't deserve any of those things? Because she's a good persons and she wanted to.
Why did Howard jump in front of a car to save a woman that fell in the middle of the street that he didn't know?
Because he's a good person and felt that was the right thing to do.

Exactly. Preserving peace, helping people, making the world a better place. That's the motivation itself. Why does Clark protects the waitress? Because it's one of those reasons. It's within his powers. It's the right thing to do. And in the end of BvS he says to Lois "This is my world. You are my world." What's this? Lack of motivation? He cares about fellow humans, he cares about loved ones. Even in the bus he's being bullied by one of classmates and another classmate tries to protect him...

 

[OutOfBoose]

His parents have actually both told him things that fly in the face of compassion. And yeah, if I'm to understand why I should care about this Superman, I think it'd be nice to understand why he cares about us.

They didn't say anything negative about compassion. They understood how Clark can affect the society. It was very responsible of them. Superman cares about us because there are many good people among us worth helping and saving.

I don't think it's enough, not even close. We don't understand why he's doing what he does beyond some lip service about these big, grand ideas that never really have a payoff.

Will grand ideas pay or not - let's wait and see how future movies unfold. I'm not forcing you, though. As for simpler ideas - I explained above.

 

[javonstokess]

But that's like asking why Finn in TFA decides to renounce his life of being a Stormtrooper. Or why Obi-Wan Kenobi or any of the other jedi do what they do, or why Anakin as a small child decides to choose this very dangerous life in order to help people. In fact, I believe there is even a line in TPM where he literally says something along the lines of helping people is the right thing to do.

As for him being guilty over not saving his father I picked that up immediately in the cemetery scene in MOS when he speaks to Lois. I forget what the line is something about "I chose to let my father die, because he was too afraid to see how the world would accept me" something something." Aside from that, as stated above, I think his actions of traveling the world and saving people after his father's death validates that enough as well.

To be fair, you can't use Finn as an example. If you're going to show how a character was raised as a child, it better damn well inform his viewpoint as an adult. Which is the problem: there is no connection between his childhood parenting and his adult decisions. He just "decides" to do good with no driving force behind it. We all just accept it because we know it's supposed to be Superman, but if it was a new character you'd be confused.

 

[Limonade]

Im aware of that, however not by me. I'll never understand that criticism.
Just because you say its "stupid" doesn't make it stupid.

This movie for some reason, is being criticized on levels that I've never seen any other movie criticized for, ever. And if I ever bring it up, the response I get was "oh well the movie was "fun" so its okay that it had that issue" or something absurd.

No, it is. Anyone who forfeits their life (fictional or not) that easily is not logical. I mean... that was like me stopping the nearest guy to help me out of an incoming train just because the guy was Donald Trump, and his type of spin would be out of control.

 

[shauner111]

Pa Kent and Clark were standing in the exact same spot, Clark could've easily fetch the dog and come back without using his superpowers. i hated that scene, it made Pa Kent stupid.

Not only that, even if Jonathan still went to get the dog. Superman could have ran towards the car, grabbed his father and dog and zipped through the fields without anyone noticing. Jonathan Kent was a dumbass and Clark basically let his father die just because his father told him to. At that point Clark is basically a man. Like Neal Adams said "Your father tells you not to save him. So you just do it?". What, is he going to be angry with you later? Who cares, suck it up! Save your dad dummy. But yeah, the whole thing could have been avoided if he just said no dad go back, i got this. Done.

The writing in these movies are so piss poor, it's unbelievable. Some of the worst scripts and directing decisions in the history of the genre. Despite having some of the strongest casting decisions and visuals in the genre.

I don't get that people don't get it. All motivations were obvious and Superman has had such a rich character arc over 2 movies. People love the Reeves movies even though his whole development was 1 minute where he spent 12 years in hibernation.

No they weren't. For example, Lex's motivations were paper thin and not even coherent. If that's what you call a rich arc, then i wonder what the real rich arcs are from television/film greats.

He was raised as a normal kid by normal parents. Compassion is something that needs a good reason? It was within his power, he wanted to help.

As for mankind... Earth is his home now. He was hammered by Kents, that people will reject him out of fear. He has to earn humanity's trust. There's also extended rant of Jor-El, they will race behind you bla-bla-bla... I think, it's enough.

Not really. He was constantly told (and scolded) to stop saving lives, don't defend yourself no matter what. And then as an adult he's told by his mom that the world doesn't deserve him, save them all or don't even bother saving them at all. He has *****ebag parents who give him some of the worst life lessons of all-time, yet he's still a good person. That's fine and dandy, but how is he such a good person when he's taught nothing but garbage?

Who cares? they survived. End of story.

Martha indeed reminded him of his own mother, of the moment, that haunted him his whole life. That he has gone too far. Like, he was forced to look at the mirror. Also, Bruce's phrase doesn't really contradict Martha scene. One thing - parents, that made Superman believe he's very special, another - alien, that cares about other people, about his own human mother, who's ready to give his life. I guess, it's both things: seeing humanity in an alien and Batman, realizing who he has become.

That's a poor defense, and shows you don't really care about Batman's characterization, why he does what he does. They survived so who cares? It's about intention. If he intends to kill every thug, but they just happened to duck out of the way and survived...then it's "who cares? they survived right?". That's horrible.

Riiight, so he sees that Superman cares for someone, and that makes it all nice? You can be a person who does some of the most evil s**t on the planet and still care for a parent or child. It doesn't mean they're going to stop killing.

WB went through 9 directors (Including Ben) for MOS before Zack took the job. They simply didn't want to do it even though Nolan was involved

I had no idea! Wow. That's a shame.

Don't get the hate for BVS. I just don't. Every. Single. Person that I know that have seen this film love it but comic fans !@#$ing hate it. I love it and I'm a comic fan. Big fan. All the major graphic novels and batman comics I have read and own. l know all the history of batman and Superman and Wonder Woman. It all clicks for me. This is comic book fans film is a wet dream. I must be reading different comics and graphic novels for all the other fans. I understand maybe hating a few things but when a fan says it's this and this and this and this and this and this that's wrong with it tells me that it's just not for you and you must be just complaining for the hell of it because it did something different to what you wanted. I don't know. I'm not meaning to offend anyone but Batman killing in films is normal to the general public. Yes it's more comic book than the other batman films and this is what we always wanted and now we are not happy. W. T. H. And how can any go well I'm not seeing this because some critic told me not to so they don't. Dc is different like people wanted from Marvel and we are still not happy.

So every person you know likes it, and you're confused as to why the other Million/Billion whatever people might not? That's pretty funny. Just because it takes from this comic here, that comic there etc..doesn't mean that the mixture works or the execution is well done. It's not a comic fans wet dream. Maybe visually, surface level, to see two characters on screen in costume. But a lot of comic fans don't think the reason behind it made sense or that the characterization of each character was right. In fact, most people don't think these characters represented who they were in the comics at all. It's only more comic book when it comes to aesthetics. Not character and writing. Plenty of other Batman movies, including some of the weaker ones like Batman Forever were far more accurate to the source material than this. Some folks aren't just satisfied with visuals coming off the pages of a comic. Some want proper story structure, development etc.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

And there was a massive tornado in the back. I think people's attention would be towards that and not Clark.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Pa Kent's death could have been handled better for sure. But, IMO, it delivers the point.

 

[Limonade]

Pa Kent's death could have been handled better for sure. But, IMO, it delivers the point.

I respect that. And to me, it gave me a mixed message.

 

[javonstokess]

If the example given is not well executed, then the point will ultimately be lost or easily disproven.

 

[Flint Marko]

part 1:
I don't think theres a lack of motivation, as stated. I'm just pointing out that you could ask why any person in any movie is doing good things, hell you could ask that in life in general. I don't think there needs to be a motivation for being a "good" person. Thats absurd.
Why did Betty throw a surprise party for Sue and get her a really expensive gift even though she didn't deserve any of those things? Because she's a good persons and she wanted to.
Why did Howard jump in front of a car to save a woman that fell in the middle of the street that he didn't know?
Because he's a good person and felt that was the right thing to do.

If you're telling me a story about someone and want me to invest in their journey, yes, it is immeasurably important to help my understand the why of their actions. The fact that no one can adequately explain why Superman wants to be Superman and do Superman things is a huge problem, and the most damning problem with the DCEU so far in my eyes.

Part 2:
Okay, fair enough. So since nobody "told him that he should save people" means that he clearly has "no motivations for saving anybody?"
How do his parents telling him that he should use his powers for good make his character arch ANY more interesting?

Anything would have made his supposed arc more interesting. Again, I don't need to be spoon fed nor do I need exposition, but anything that would've given me a reason to understand why Superman cares about us and wants to save us would have helped.

Part 3: I was merely using that as an example. When I pull examples from other movies that have the same "issues"(which in fact are really not issues at all) people just excuse them because they were "fun" or "well they had a more compelling story" etc etc. I wasn't particularly making an example out of the lack of "fun"(which, how does one measure that? because I thought this movie was tons of fun)

That part of my post was my reaction to the tone becoming such a deflection used by defenders to reductively dismiss the numerous criticisms leveled at this movie, so I apologize if it doesn't apply to you.

They didn't say anything negative about compassion. They understood how Clark can affect the society. It was very responsible of them. Superman cares about us because there are many good people among us worth helping and saving.

Except for those kids on the bus, I guess. Also doesn't Martha tell Clark he doesn't owe this world a thing? This doesn't really add up.

Will grand ideas pay or not - let's wait and see how future movies unfold. I'm not forcing you, though. As for simpler ideas - I explained above.

I've given them two chances and they've only disappointed me each time.

 

[javonstokess]

I was never a fan of either of the Kent parents dying, but Reeves' version had the best one and proved the best point.

Having Clark's father die by a heart attack gives a stunning example that not all of Clark's problems can be solved with his powers and also that he can't save everyone.

 

[regwec]

I see we have reached the point where detractors are willing to simply impute things which they dislike into the movie. Adieu.