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

[Flint Marko]

Here's an interesting analysis: http://moviepilot.com/posts/3869095

I tuned out right when I saw the author claim the movie was set up to fail because people hate Zack Snyder.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Here's an interesting analysis: http://moviepilot.com/posts/3869095

Ah yes the same website that calls Sucker Punch a masterpiece "too smart" for people to understand. Obviously some astute critical minds at work there.

 

[Timebomb]

Don't people realize that it is Batman's morals that make him such a great character and separates him from the Punishers of the world. The fact that he struggles with his choice to not murder on a daily basis is what elevates him. Here is a man that has all the skills to kill and chooses not to. Chooses justice. People say the the DCEU Batman has gone through so much and has become jaded and murderous. I don't buy it. (Even if he does isn't that something we should see and go on that journey with him so we can witness his fall? Otherwise where is the emotional impact?) However Batman wouldn't fall from grace, he wouldn't let himself. That is how strong his morals are. Heck it's why Superman, the most powerful person in the world respects Bruce over all others. As I recall, in the comics (pre 52) it is Superman who gives Batman kryptonite and tells him that he is giving the weapon that can kill him, because he is the person Superman trusts the most. Because of his morals.
By the way, IMO the only person that can make Batman ever kill, ever, would be the Joker. Then the Joker would be dead and the Batman would probably turn himself in because he would now stand for everything he has fought against his whole life.

 

[The Shape]

This is another issue. If Batman was behaving this way because of some tragedy that happened with Robin, that's kind of something we need to see! Just another example of Snyder being a poor storyteller.

Batman behaving that way wasn't only because of whatever tragedy happened with Robin. That may have added to it, but the film clearly shows and indicates that the Metropolis incident was what incited this change in Bruce that pushed him over the edge. That's not just some pointless 10 minute sequence in the beginning of the movie. You could remove the Robin suit and it wouldn't matter. Bruce and Alfred also have conversations which reference the past, indicate that he has been doing this for a long time, emphasize that Bruce has lost people before, explain that he wasn't always this way, etc.

It's not necessary for every movie character to have a detailed backstory that is either explicitly shown or explained it detail -- let alone Batman. It's not uncommon for protagonists or antagonists to just have vaguely referenced past experiences/history, which still give of a sense of what they've been through and where they are in their current life.

 

[Timebomb]

A shame Affleck was only the second best Punisher released in March.

This is another issue. If Batman was behaving this way because of some tragedy that happened with Robin, that's kind of something we need to see! Just another example of Snyder being a poor storyteller.

Correct. And I know some people will say wait for the stand alone film. No, it's something we need to see play out and not in a flashback. But we also need to care about this Batman first or it won't have any emotional impact. Just like Superman's death in BVS. To be honest, I don't care about this Batman just like I don't care for this Superman.

 

[MrsKent26]

I think every bit of evidence goes to show that this is very much a direction Batman could go. Batman is not a moral person. Batman is a criminal that convinces himself that he isn't. But he is. He doesn't strive to help people, he punishes criminal first and foremost.

As character called "Batman" could go anyway a writer wants him to go, but that doesn't mean that version retains core characteristics associated with the character and it may be judged harshly based on that.

I disagree with the bold parts of your statement.

Batman is a very moral person. Heroes usually are. Morals are what separate him from those he opposes. If he weren't moral, he'd probably be what you say, but he lives by a code. Much of his fierce traits are invoked to frighten wrongdoers. They don't make him any less heroic, selfless, or caring than the sunnier heroes. Revenge against criminals is certainly part of his goal, but so is preventing good people from suffering like he suffered when the good people that were his family were murdered.

Sometimes I think people forget that there are two facets to batman: the one that's damaged and angry and seeks to inspire fear into the type of people that made him that way and the one who is simply a good man that believes people deserve someone to stand up for them.

I really hope you guys aren't referring to someone like me, or anyone who isn't against this version of Batman. It's entirely possible for someone to completely understand and cherish the Batman character and still be accepting of this particular version.

Certainly. It could even be argued that Batfleck retains some of what I described above in certain scenes, like the very first one during the Metropolis battle.

 

[shauner111]

Don't people realize that it is Batman's morals that make him such a great character and separates him from the Punishers of the world. The fact that he struggles with his choice to not murder on a daily basis is what elevates him. Here is a man that has all the skills to kill and chooses not to. Chooses justice. People say the the DCEU Batman has gone through so much and has become jaded and murderous. I don't buy it. (Even if he does isn't that something we should see and go on that journey with him so we can witness his fall? Otherwise where is the emotional impact?) However Batman wouldn't fall from grace, he wouldn't let himself. That is how strong his morals are. Heck it's why Superman, the most powerful person in the world respects Bruce over all others. As I recall, in the comics (pre 52) it is Superman who gives Batman kryptonite and tells him that he is giving the weapon that can kill him, because he is the person Superman trusts the most. Because of his morals.
By the way, IMO the only person that can make Batman ever kill, ever, would be the Joker. Then the Joker would be dead and the Batman would probably turn himself in because he would now stand for everything he has fought against his whole life.

Batman behaving that way wasn't only because of whatever tragedy happened with Robin. That may have added to it, but the film clearly shows and indicates that the Metropolis incident was what incited this change in Bruce that pushed him over the edge. That's not just some pointless 10 minute sequence in the beginning of the movie. You could remove the Robin suit and it wouldn't matter. Bruce and Alfred also have conversations which reference the past, indicate that he has been doing this for a long time, emphasize that Bruce has lost people before, explain that he wasn't always this way, etc.

It's not necessary for every movie character to have a detailed backstory that is either explicitly shown or explained it detail -- let alone Batman. It's not uncommon for protagonists or antagonists to just have vaguely referenced past experiences/history, which still give of a sense of what they've been through and where they are in their current life.

So in a nutshell, we can say Superman's appearance, how he and Zod destroyed all of those lives, THAT'S what turned Batman into a branding, killing Bat? It wasn't even in Gotham. An employee or maybe it was many employees (we don't know for sure) went down that day. Im sorry but if he looked into it more, he would find out that is not just Superman's fault. Superman also saved lives that day. Yes he took part in the destruction. It's a part of his responsibility, but if Bruce used his head, he would know that Superman didn't intentionally kill those people. He didn't want them to die. Why would BATMAN of all characters throw away his moral code because there was an alien invasion in Metropolis? Does he toss his code away everytime a huge terrorist attack happens? If he had some employees working in the towers during 911, would he go on a killing spree? Come on man.

There's no history shown or told to us. He's just there as Batman. Been doing it for a while. Experienced loss like the versions we've seen in the comics or films. And then this Superman stuff goes down, and he's suddenly a monster who has thrown away the entire point of Batman. It's forced. It's done so there could be a scene towards the end where Superman inspires Batman to go back to his old ways. It would have been better if he was just brooding, and more depressed, but still acted like himself in important situations. Then he's about to kill Superman, and he doesn't. Then right after this, he continues to be the Batman he used to be. But this doesn't happen before the murder that almost took place in that abandoned building, and it doesn't happen afterwards either.

I personally don't think it was the Superman thing that sent him over the edge. I don't believe he killed his enemies post-Superman. He was already over the edge, and he let himself go over the edge from the same things that comic book Batman or even Bale's Batman went through. They endured. This one didn't because he was written to be weak, so they can make him look stronger later when he goes through his "arc". For me, it made him look weaker by the end of it. But you know, since i have no proof that he was like this Pre-Superman, i have to by what's in the film. The film shows me Bruce Wayne in Metropolis helping a kid, helping Wallace with his legs, etc. Then he goes apes**t. After this scene, we see that almost 2 years have passed, and he started branding people and we see him blowing people away with guns, stabbing people. So maybe you're right. It's all from Superman. In other words, this is a very weak Batman in every way other than his strong physique.

I can tell Terrio never read a comic before this movie, because everyone is out of character.

Batman stops being interesting when you take away his heart and his code. This movie did both.

 

[The Shape]

Certainly. It could even be argued that Batfleck retains some of what I described above in certain scenes, like the very first one during the Metropolis battle.

Yeah. The film opens with him compassionately saving a life, just as it ends with it.

 

[SupermanFanboy]

Ah yes the same website that calls Sucker Punch a masterpiece "too smart" for people to understand. Obviously some astute critical minds at work there.

I thought Sucker Punch was a great movie! Visuals were stunning and the Direction of that Story/World was so Different and Unique unlike any other live action film I have seen which to me makes it very special! I like that in movies and what I expect from fantasy/action that takes me in the world the story takes place in!!

 

[Poni_Boy]

I thought Sucker Punch was a great movie!

Oh so you're that one guy

 

[MrsKent26]

Sometimes I think batman's sheer badassery throws people off.

The see him kicking ass left and right and think of him as some sort of menace or "bad boy" archetype. But all that badassery is carefully stored and released in precise amounts that allow him to control how much damage he inflicts. He's not careless; he knows exactly how breakable people are. He didn't just wake up one day and take to the streets; he's been in preparation for years specifically so he can let loose the badass, but maintain his morals.

BatFleck was seen to contrast this precisely because his was broken. He's not an example of batman's usual or his prime.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Sometimes I think batman's sheer badassery throws people off.

The see him kicking ass left and right and think of him as some sort of menace or "bad boy" archetype. But all that badassery is carefully stored and released in precise amounts that allow him to control how much damage he inflicts. He's not careless; he knows exactly how breakable people are. He didn't just wake up one day and take to the streets; he's been in preparation for years specially so his can let loose the badass, but maintain his morals.

BatFleck was seen to contrast this precisely because his was broken. He's not an example of batman's usual or his prime.

Yep. To use an action movie centric analogy, he's Bruce Lee, not Jean Claude Van Damme.

 

[SupermanFanboy]

So in a nutshell, we can say Superman's appearance, how he and Zod destroyed all of those lives, THAT'S what turned Batman into a branding, killing Bat? It wasn't even in Gotham. An employee or maybe it was many employees (we don't know for sure) went down that day. Im sorry but if he looked into it more, he would find out that is not just Superman's fault. Superman also saved lives that day. Yes he took part in the destruction. It's a part of his responsibility, but if Bruce used his head, he would know that Superman didn't intentionally kill those people. He didn't want them to die. Why would BATMAN of all characters throw away his moral code because there was an alien invasion in Metropolis? Does he toss his code away everytime a huge terrorist attack happens? If he had some employees working in the towers during 911, would he go on a killing spree? Come on man.

There's no history shown or told to us. He's just there as Batman. Been doing it for a while. Experienced loss like the versions we've seen in the comics or films. And then this Superman stuff goes down, and he's suddenly a monster who has thrown away the entire point of Batman. It's forced. It's done so there could be a scene towards the end where Superman inspires Batman to go back to his old ways. It would have been better if he was just brooding, and more depressed, but still acted like himself in important situations. Then he's about to kill Superman, and he doesn't. Then right after this, he continues to be the Batman he used to be. But this doesn't happen before the murder that almost took place in that abandoned building, and it doesn't happen afterwards either.

I personally don't think it was the Superman thing that sent him over the edge. I don't believe he killed his enemies post-Superman. He was already over the edge, and he let himself go over the edge from the same things that comic book Batman or even Bale's Batman went through. They endured. This one didn't because he was written to be weak, so they can make him look stronger later when he goes through his "arc". For me, it made him look weaker by the end of it.

I can tell Terrio never read a comic before this movie, because everyone is out of character.

Batman stops being interesting when you take away his heart and his code. This movie did both.

Well I don't agree with that in my point of view!! I've seen the movie twice (LOVED it btw! My fav movie in DCEU so far!! so go ahead and call me a idiot who doesnt know a good movie if my life dependent on it as most horrible people on here have ridiculed me already....it don't bother me what you think) and each time I saw batman as having lost his way of his own moral and ethics after being in it for over 20 years! Remember the line criminals are like weeds Alfred, you pull one out and another one grows in its place or something like that The metropolis destruction of Wayne building was something I always saw That fuels his anger of superman and what he's brought to the world and his own personal problem with him with the help from lex!! So in the end with Bruce's moral ethics and personal problems....superman in the end not necessarily inspired him but instead helped put him back on the path he was always known for and showed that the world is still worth fighting for and they need each other!!

I was so happy that Snyder put my hero superman as the shining example of Justice league!!

 

[SupermanFanboy]

Oh so you're that one guy

So I'm what guy? Someone related to that site or something that user posted? No! I don't even know what that site or article or whatever is on that link is I don't even care to read it cause sucker punch was years ago and I don't care to even talk about it! I think it was a great movie if you didn't like it that's fine but I'm not gonna say your so and so kind of guy because you didn't like it. We get it you didn't like it okay now what else is new

 

[shauner111]

Well I don't agree with that in my point of view!! I've seen the movie twice (LOVED it btw! My fav movie in DCEU so far!! so go ahead and call me a idiot who doesnt know a good movie if my life dependent on it as most horrible people on here have ridiculed me already....it don't bother me what you think) and each time I saw batman as having lost his way of his own moral and ethics after being in it for over 20 years! Remember the line criminals are like weeds Alfred, you pull one out and another one grows in its place or something like that The metropolis destruction of Wayne building was something I always saw That fuels his anger of superman and what he's brought to the world and his own personal problem with him with the help from lex!! So in the end with Bruce's moral ethics and personal problems....superman in the end not necessarily inspired him but instead helped put him back on the path he was always known for and showed that the world is still worth fighting for and they need each other!!

I was so happy that Snyder put my hero superman as the shining example of Justice league!!

!!

 

[rogue trooper]

So I'm what guy? Someone related to that site or something that user posted? No! I don't even know what that site or article or whatever is on that link is I don't even care to read it cause sucker punch was years ago and I don't care to even talk about it! I think it was a great movie if you didn't like it that's fine but I'm not gonna say your so and so kind of guy because you didn't like it. We get it you didn't like it okay now what else is new

 

[parkerpete]

Batman doesn't kill. If he kills, he kills the Joker, eight o'clock day one.

'Blah blah blah he killed in the 30's so it's part of canon blah blah blah'... except Superman only could Super-LEAP originally. Hulk was GREY. Daffy Duck was insane, not resentful. Charlie Brown was drawn in a totally different style. Bucky was a kid sidekick.

Characters evolve over time until they are honed into their iconic versions. The iconic version of Batman is a ninja with the mind of Sherlock Holmes who will bend and evade the law in every way but one: He will not kill. He will not use the weapons of his enemy. And while vengeance is part of his drive, his ultimate allegiance--and his redemption--lies with his care for the victims. Even TDKR, a movie that I generally loathe, shows Bruce putting his fortune to work on behalf of Gotham's orphanages and free energy.

Snyder's Batman isn't just a murderer; he's self-pitying, and not at all bright (seriously, he seems not even curious about the ultimate plans of Luthor or the IDENTITY OF THE ALIEN HE'S PLEDGED TO KILL??? EVEN IF HE'S JUST GOING TO MURDER THE GUY, BATMAN DOESN'T BOTHER TO RESEARCH HIS BACKGROUND??? LOIS LANE AND LEX LUTHOR ARE SMARTER THAN THE GUY WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE SUCH A SUPERLATIVE VIGILANTE THAT HE CAN BE A MEMBER OF A SUPERTEAM WITH WONDER WOMAN AND FREAKING SUPERMAN????)

If you're going to have Batman kill, there needs to be extreme circumstances and extreme consequences. Just saying 'He's killing because he's sad, but watching sad Superman stupidly impale himself changes his mind' is dumb. Because if this is a guy who abandons his ethics and his morals every time he loses someone on the battlefield, or finds out an enemy's mom is named 'Martha', well... he's psychotic and has no business being a superhero.

 

[NateHevens]

You know, that's all I could ask for. We don't need to agree, as long as we can understand each other, right? And who knows. Maybe on your second viewing...when it comes...you'll get to sort of see it through my eyes. I hope you do if only because I enjoyed it, and it's good enjoying things.

Agreed.

Man I could have kept writing for another four days. I was going to go back in and add in a whole section about the use of visual metaphor in film, but I was worried that it would be insulting to the reader if I felt I had to explain that. However I was also concerned that by omitting it, I was leaving a loophole for somebody to exploit. I decided I had to just be done with it at some point.


We will see. Can't do anything if folks don't read it. And I don't think the hardcore haters are going to feel like investing the time it takes to read that monster.

(I realize this last part wasn't to me, but still...)

To be fair, the only reason I haven't been classified as a "hardcore hater" yet is because I've purposefully been vague and kept my posting-count on it somewhat low.

But I really did hate BvS after my first viewing.

However, I'm also really angry about this. I'm not happy about it; I'm depressed. I wanted it to be incredible. I wanted it to be critically acclaimed. I wanted it to be good. And that's despite the skepticism I posted in the relevant thread, which really was just me preparing for the possibility that I might not like the film... and I didn't do a good job preparing at all, because it let me down harder than, by rights, a frickin' movie should let anybody down.

It was honestly heartbreaking at how bad I felt BvS was, and I stick to my conviction that I loved the acting because the acting (again, even from Jesse Eisenberg) is the only bright spot in it for me. I don't blame a single one of the actors for it.

So yeah, I could be called a "hater", but I'm definitely not happy about it.

 

[Limonade]

Batman doesn't kill. If he kills, he kills the Joker, eight o'clock day one.

'Blah blah blah he killed in the 30's so it's part of canon blah blah blah'... except Superman only could Super-LEAP originally. Hulk was GREY. Daffy Duck was insane, not resentful. Charlie Brown was drawn in a totally different style. Bucky was a kid sidekick.

Characters evolve over time until they are honed into their iconic versions. The iconic version of Batman is a ninja with the mind of Sherlock Holmes who will bend and evade the law in every way but one: He will not kill. He will not use the weapons of his enemy. And while vengeance is part of his drive, his ultimate allegiance--and his redemption--lies with his care for the victims. Even TDKR, a movie that I generally loathe, shows Bruce putting his fortune to work on behalf of Gotham's orphanages and free energy.

Snyder's Batman isn't just a murderer; he's self-pitying, and not at all bright (seriously, he seems not even curious about the ultimate plans of Luthor or the IDENTITY OF THE ALIEN HE'S PLEDGED TO KILL??? EVEN IF HE'S JUST GOING TO MURDER THE GUY, BATMAN DOESN'T BOTHER TO RESEARCH HIS BACKGROUND??? LOIS LANE AND LEX LUTHOR ARE SMARTER THAN THE GUY WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE SUCH A SUPERLATIVE VIGILANTE THAT HE CAN BE A MEMBER OF A SUPERTEAM WITH WONDER WOMAN AND FREAKING SUPERMAN????)

If you're going to have Batman kill, there needs to be extreme circumstances and extreme consequences. Just saying 'He's killing because he's sad, but watching sad Superman stupidly impale himself changes his mind' is dumb. Because if this is a guy who abandons his ethics and his morals every time he loses someone on the battlefield, or finds out an enemy's mom is named 'Martha', well... he's psychotic and has no business being a superhero.

Yeah. I'm with you on that point.

 

[Timebomb]

Agreed.



(I realize this last part wasn't to me, but still...)

To be fair, the only reason I haven't been classified as a "hardcore hater" yet is because I've purposefully been vague and kept my posting-count on it somewhat low.

But I really did hate BvS after my first viewing.

However, I'm also really angry about this. I'm not happy about it; I'm depressed. I wanted it to be incredible. I wanted it to be critically acclaimed. I wanted it to be good. And that's despite the skepticism I posted in the relevant thread, which really was just me preparing for the possibility that I might not like the film... and I didn't do a good job preparing at all, because it let me down harder than, by rights, a frickin' movie should let anybody down.

It was honestly heartbreaking at how bad I felt BvS was, and I stick to my conviction that I loved the acting because the acting (again, even from Jesse Eisenberg) is the only bright spot in it for me. I don't blame a single one of the actors for it.

So yeah, I could be called a "hater", but I'm definitely not happy about it.

I think it is safe to say a lot of us "haters" actually feel this way. We feel this way because we care and we were invested. I wanted more than anything a great Batman AND Superman movie. If I could go back before this movie came out, I would. But this is what we got. Do we have a right to hate it? Yes we do and shame on anyone who says otherwise. My hate comes from a position of caring for these characters and I selfishly want the characters I care about and not the ones we got. Selfish? Yes. Malicious? No.

 

[nogster]

I see a big discussion over Batman killing. What about Superman's opening scene where he flies someone through brick walls at superspeed.?! What was that big uproar in MOS over killing Zod?

 

[Limonade]

I see a big discussion over Batman killing. What about Superman's opening scene where he flies someone through brick walls at superspeed.?! What was that big uproar in MOS over killing Zod?

Lol. It was more of the same with Snyder's Superman. I lol'd when that happened... in my mind I was like "Goddammit, Snyder. No bad guy too big or small for your Superman to obliterate."

At least in MoS, you could argue that Zod was Supes equal... and letting him live would be a danger to Earth.

 

[parkerpete]

I see a big discussion over Batman killing. What about Superman's opening scene where he flies someone through brick walls at superspeed.?! What was that big uproar in MOS over killing Zod?

Just the icing on the Snyder-cake.

But you're right... Batman at least has human limitations, which means it's harder for him to stop criminals without killing.

But what's Snyderman's excuse? The guy has superspeed, flight, heat vision, and yet the only thing he can think to do to stop a normal terrorist is ram him at 200 miles an hour.

 

[Timebomb]

I see a big discussion over Batman killing. What about Superman's opening scene where he flies someone through brick walls at superspeed.?! What was that big uproar in MOS over killing Zod?

You had to open THAT can of worms. Once we start talking about a Superman who is willing to turn someone to pulp it brings up questions about the motivations for Superman having issues with Batman. Just so many issues with the motivations in this movie.

 

[nogster]

I think it is safe to say a lot of us "haters" actually feel this way. We feel this way because we care and we were invested. I wanted more than anything a great Batman AND Superman movie. If I could go back before this movie came out, I would. But this is what we got. Do we have a right to hate it? Yes we do and shame on anyone who says otherwise. My hate comes from a position of caring for these characters and I selfishly want the characters I care about and not the ones we got. Selfish? Yes. Malicious? No.

Here here. My negative reaction to this film is because of my love for the characters.
The Trinity deserved a much much better film than this divisive mess.