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

[Flint Marko]

He claimed Superman is accused of killing people in Africa, but it's stupid, because they were killed by bullets.

Wait, are you saying Superman wasn't accused of killing people in Africa? Then what was the whole point of the hearing? Why was that African woman speaking to people in DC? Why did Superman outright tell Lois, "I didn't kill those people"?

 

[metaphysician]

Seems to me if you give some fans a comic book accurate costume, comic book accurate aesthetic and comic book accurate gadgets they couldn't care less about comic book accurate character beats. Make it look like what they like, the actual character doesn't matter.

Film Critic Hulk has talked about this kind of thing in a bunch of his articles. Basically, if you don't want to bother writing a good story? Just fill the film to the brim with the most indulgent aspects of the franchise, and hope that enough people will be satisfied with pure uncut wish fulfillment. Hence why one of FCH's theses is "Batman is the most popular DC hero, because he's the most indulgent DC hero."

 

[Jaxon]

Um...I was using it as an example. Essentially "since there's a 1% chance you could do something wrong, I'm going to kill you to prevent that 1% from becoming realized."

It's a flawed thought process that the World's Greatest Detective would never use.

If you continue to compare the 33 year old Batman in your head that feels like he's making a difference, to a 45 year old Batman where everything in his life has gone to s*** and has realised that his contribution in his life has amounted to nothing, then you're going to struggle to understand that.

 

[Flint Marko]

Film Critic Hulk has talked about this kind of thing in a bunch of his articles. Basically, if you don't want to bother writing a good story? Just fill the film to the brim with the most indulgent aspects of the franchise, and hope that enough people will be satisfied with pure uncut wish fulfillment. Hence why one of FCH's theses is "Batman is the most popular DC hero, because he's the most indulgent DC hero."

FCH is brilliant. I'm really looking forward to his thoughts on BvS.

 

[shauner111]

When I suggested he had become more level-headed, I was speaking more in a general sense and referring to things like: coming to his senses and NOT killing Superman (which he had been irrationally focused on doing for much of the film), understanding the true threat/stakes and refocusing his actions toward stopping it, developing a more reasonable and hopeful perspective about humanity and the world around him, wanting to seek out and band together with other metahumans (as opposed to wanting to seek out and destroy them), and yes, not branding Lex Luthor and seemingly leaving that whole thing behind him. You know what I meant, and yet you chose to latch on to the term "level headed" and try to disqualify it by applying it to a specific moment in the film that was unrelated to the discussion we were having.

But as for using your nitpick of the flamethrower tank moment as an example of Batman not being level-headed, Batman technically didn't blow up the gas tank. He shoots the tank, which distracts the guy holding the weapon for a second as Batman dives to cover Martha. As the guy turns back and pulls the flamethrower trigger, it explodes. But either way, this is all irrelevant, because it was a high-stakes hostage situation which required a split second decision from Batman, one in which his decision allowed him to succeed in saving that person's life. If there are ever moments in which heroes get a pass for making a risky decision to save a life, it's in moments like this one.

Do you pick up apart other high-stakes situations in action/fantasy movies (which feature protagonists making split-second, dangerous decisions to save lives) like you are with this one based on what "could have" happened? Would you criticize Bale's Batman for not being level-headed when he knocked Harvey Dent and Gordon's son off a building (killing Dent) with the intention of miraculously grabbing the boy with one arm to save him from getting a bullet to the head? Because I wouldn't. There are probably countless movie examples of characters making risky decisions to save lives, decisions that could have gone south (and probably would have) in real life.

As for the "Batman trained Robin to be a killer" thing, you seem to have a habit of choosing to believe whatever you want to believe even when there is no evidence of something, so I have no interest in trying to dissuade you from believing this one. But the "proof" you're referring to is one click-bait "article" from today which chose to focus on the weapon displayed with the Robin suit and uses nothing but pure conjecture to speculate on how Robin used the weapon. This is the same weapon that we have all seen in multiple trailers (dating back to the SDCC trailer) and the film itself, and there is absolutely zero actual information which refers to Robin having killed people or Batman training him to be a killer, or even vaguely suggests as much.

But hey, this one guy who wrote an article about it thinks it's true, so it's gotta be true, I guess.

I wasn't. You said level-headed, but at no point in the movie does he really act level-headed, and we have no idea if he ever was level-headed in his prime.

It's an axe/spear, what else would he use it for? You said it yourself that it seemed like Snyder didn't have a problem with batman killing and so it wasn't even a part of his arc, not to kill a criminal. You said it was all about not murdering Superman and not torturing criminals by branding their skin, right? Zack himself thought killing a criminal wasn't a problem. I'm just putting two and two together. Batman killing, Alfred never commenting on it. Robin has a weapon that could only be used as a weapon of defense. Why would a kid be holding that all the time?

He didn't technically blow up the gas tank? He shot it? S**t can go wrong, much worse than a point blank shot to the skull

Why couldn't he shoot KGBEAST in the head since he was in a desperate situation? He's lucky he was able to cover her in time. But i can let it pass.

I pick this apart because it's Batman, and it's fun. He has a different code compared to other action heroes, in other action/fantasy movies.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

FCH is brilliant. I'm really looking forward to his thoughts on BvS.

FCH likely won't see it. He did make funny comments on the reactions to it he's heard.

https://***********/FilmCritHULK/status/714565403968561152

https://***********/FilmCritHULK/status/714565976801447936

 

[Marvel Knight]

Doug Walker (Nostalgia Critic) and Angry Joe's BVS Review is up and they tear the film apart, it's hilarious.

They even have a pretty good Zack Snyder impersonator. Snyder is the new Michael Bay it seems.

 

[rogue trooper]

Don't know if it's been posted yet, but here's the Screen Junkies debate on the film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB78yaPo6Os

 

[Keyser Sushi]

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 get that. I don't suspect that most of the people who hate the movie are happy about it -- or they wouldn't be so pissed off! It's all good.

It's just that for some of us, the anger coming from some people is a little abrasive, and it's hard to have a civil and considered discussion sometimes in such an angry environment. Like how angry everybody got about the use of the word "hater" yesterday. I can't speak for anyone else but I only meant it in the literal sense of, "someone who hates this movie." Of whom there are undeniably plenty!

And like Poni was telling me a little while back - he was genuinely let down by the film and he doesn't WANT to talk a lot about it or read a lot about it, because it really was a slap in the face for him. So I know he has no interest in reading what I wrote, for instance.

For him the grief is still too near.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

As for the "Batman trained Robin to be a killer" thing, you seem to have a habit of choosing to believe whatever you want to believe even when there is no evidence of something, so I have no interest in trying to dissuade you from believing this one. But the "proof" you're referring to is one click-bait "article" from today which chose to focus on the weapon displayed with the Robin suit and uses nothing but pure conjecture to speculate on how Robin used the weapon. This is the same weapon that we have all seen in multiple trailers (dating back to the SDCC trailer) and the film itself, and there is absolutely zero actual information which refers to Robin having killed people or Batman training him to be a killer, or even vaguely suggests as much.

But hey, this one guy who wrote an article about it thinks it's true, so it's gotta be true, I guess.

Are you for real right now?

So Snyder suggests that Robins weapon of choice was a halberd, he puts that on the screen, a lethal weapon. And your idea is that the general viewer somehow will think Robin used it to NOT kill people? In a movie as dark and depressing as this where heroes are already killing left and right?

This is what you wanna go with?

 

[Timebomb]

You described very basic outline, but missed a lot of stuff too.
"Any of this" just aligns with his personal crisis. He was powerless to save his parents, he was powerless to save his employees, he was powerless to save his friends, including Robin. According to Bruce, good guys turned bad and caused enough grief. He sees this super-being with absurd amount of power, when even his good deeds can cause so much suffering and pain. What if he turns bad? "You know what promises are worth". Good cocktail of paranoia, fear, anger and guilt. He's a heavy drinker as well. It's a broken Bat.
Power is just one of many elements. Bruce is getting older. He thinks about his legacy. He doesn't believe fighting crime was worth it. Hence comparison of criminals to weeds. His legacy is symbolized by his destroyed mansion. His legacy - dead friends in a shape of Robin's suit. He recalls his ancestors, who were hunters, and thinks, that hunting down that wannabe god would be his true legacy. He thinks future of the world is in danger. I don't know if it's important for his arc, but maybe stuff, that he saw in Knightmare vision, added to his decision.
Normally, I would agree with you. But this is a broken Bat.
He doesn't believe the world needs a hero like him.

I understand you claim that this is a broken Batman and the one in this movie is broken. My issue is that why would he be broken. Why would you start your DCEU with a Batman like this? I would argue that Batman could not be broken. He would not let himself become what he trained his whole life to fight. But let's say he does brake. Isn't that something that should be explored and shown? And I don't mean in flashbacks. So if he is broken, do you actually buy his redemption arc in this film? If that is the arc they are trying to tell. He has fallen and is about to murder Superman and then the "MARTHA" scene. That's what redeems him? The fact that the alien has a mom. Again I don't buy it. What happened to the "even if there is 1% chance" speech? If it is going to have such an impact on him, shouldn't it take some time to process? That's why that scene is joked about so much. There is literally no real believable emotion. And now the Batman is redeemed? Again, I don't buy it. Once Batman crosses that line there is no going back. At least there shouldn't be because he is now what he hates, a killer.

 

[Jaxon]

I understand you claim that this is a broken Batman and the one in this movie is broken. My issue is that why would he be broken. Why would you start your DCEU with a Batman like this? I would argue that Batman could not be broken. He would not let himself become what he trained his whole life to fight. But let's say he does brake. Isn't that something that should be explored and shown? And I don't mean in flashbacks. So if he is broken, do you actually buy his redemption arc in this film? If that is the arc they are trying to tell. He has fallen and is about to murder Superman and then the "MARTHA" scene. That's what redeems him? The fact that the alien has a mom. Again I don't buy it. What happened to the "even if there is 1% chance" speech? If it is going to have such an impact on him, shouldn't it take some time to process? That's why that scene is joked about so much. There is literally no real believable emotion. And now the Batman is redeemed? Again, I don't buy it. Once Batman crosses that line there is no going back. At least there shouldn't be because he is now what he hates, a killer.

The other thing it shows though is that Lex > Batman. Which is how it should be.

 

[Flint Marko]

Are you for real right now?

So Snyder suggests that Robins weapon of choice was a halberd, he puts that on the screen, a lethal weapon. And your idea is that the general viewer somehow will think Robin used it to NOT kill people? In a movie as dark and depressing as this where heroes are already killing left and right?

This is what you wanna go with?

To be fair I'm not sure if Snyder actually thought it through that much. That isn't a dig, I'm sincerely not trying to sound pithy, but I honestly don't think the implication crossed his mind.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

I'm not sure if Snyder actually thought it through

BvS in a nutshell.

 

[Timebomb]

BvS in a nutshell.

Thank you sir.

 

[NateHevens]

So, Dad finally saw Batman v Superman on Tuesday (April 19th), and I went along with him.

He absolutely loved it. He considers it to be incredible and doesn't get the hate (he's read many reviews, including my spoiler-free one at my blog). He preordered the Blu Ray box set (with the Theatrical and Extended Cut) as soon as we got home, and he's thinking of seeing it again.

As for me...

A few others here said that a second viewing redeemed the film for them. I don't think I can go that far, but I absolutely liked it better the second time around. It seems that to get BvS, you have to watch it twice.

See, with the exception of the acting, I hated BvS after my initial viewing. That was, in part, because of how it failed to match my expectations. But I was prepared for that on my second viewing, and decided that instead of focusing on everything I hated (which I should say was a lot), I should just watch the film for what it is.

And that actually helped... a lot.

I was able to focus on the stuff I did like (mainly the acting). Gal Gadot and Ben Affleck impressed me even more this time around. I was able to watch past the sloppy editing to see the story underneath. The positive reviews (including Keyser Sushi's great 17-page write-up) helped a bit, I think, as I was able to see more clearly what others liked about this film, and so I was able to fill in the stuff I simply couldn't during my initial viewing.

I still can't say that I love the film. However, I can now say that I liked it for what it was. And, this time, I can say that I am okay with Zack Snyder staying on, on the condition that he either be watched very carefully or be made the head visual director of the DC Cinematic Universe, with somebody else directing the story and characters. I have already accepted that he'll be directing the first Justice League film, and so my expectations for that are in check (I'm much more hyped for Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman).

If you feel like you're able to, and you haven't, yet, definitely go in for that second viewing.

When you already know exactly what you're getting, the movie is indeed better. It is definitely more palatable, at the very least.

Incidentally, it also sort of justifies my feelings about spoilers. See, I read the full, spoilered synopsis posted in the Unabashed Spoiler thread before my first viewing, and the film still failed to match my expectations, even with them being based around that spoiler-filled, detailed synopsis. I'm still glad I read that, and I always will be, and so I will continue to seek out spoilers whenever I can (trust me... I'll be spoiling myself for Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman, and proudly).

So, in short, I'm still disappointed, but I'm no longer angry. I was able to find a few more things to like (I actually liked Lex, Senator Finch, and Doomsday better this time around, actually). I was actually able to buy into Batman better, as well. I was capable of seeing the broken Bat that they were trying to show, and can accept that arc for what it is. To be fair, Ben Affleck did a great job of making me hate Batman in the BvS fight the first time around, and this was even more true the second time around (and yes, that's a good thing, and a major reason I have so much praise for Ben's acting in this).

And I actually cried at [BLACKOUT]the death and funeral of Superman and Clark Kent[/BLACKOUT] this time around, which I really didn't on my first viewing. It hit me a lot harder this time, which I wasn't prepared for. But I think it's because I let myself just sit back and be told a story, and so got caught up in it this time, which I absolutely could not do the first time.

I do still have most of my complaints and nitpicks (the Knightmare, Diana watching Lex's files, the sloppy editing [though yes, that can be explained with the extended edition], etc), but I found it generally more enjoyable this time.

So... you know... there's my reaction to my second viewing of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

 

[Lily Adler]

Wait, are you saying Superman wasn't accused of killing people in Africa? Then what was the whole point of the hearing? Why was that African woman speaking to people in DC? Why did Superman outright tell Lois, "I didn't kill those people"?

He was indirectly responsible for their deaths because he got involved in a volatile environment. His interference by saving Lois inadvertently cost lives. It just wasn't portrayed clearly enough.

 

[FunkMiller]

To be fair I'm not sure if Snyder actually thought it through that much. That isn't a dig, I'm sincerely not trying to sound pithy, but I honestly don't think the implication crossed his mind.

I'll cheerfully sound pithy. He's either a bloodthirsty manchild who should be writing bad fan fiction, or a stone cold moron.

Put a bloody sharp, pointy halberd in the hands of someone, and it's obvious you intend that person to be a killer. Unless just out of shot is a giant cork, that Batman squeezes over the end of the thing just before they go into battle.

"No Robin! I said you could have the medieval killing device, but the cork stays on when you poke it at Joker!".

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

He was indirectly responsible for their deaths because he got involved in a volatile environment. His interference by saving Lois inadvertently cost lives. It just wasn't portrayed clearly enough.

Wait, what? Everyone is already dead when Supes shows up. KGBeast and his cronies are gone too.

 

[Jaxon]

Wait, what? Everyone is already dead when Supes shows up. KGBeast and his cronies are gone too.

That's not how it was reported or interpreted. It was reported as Superman interferes and then people get shot. That's why Clark tells Lois he wasn't responsible for killing anyone.

 

[javonstokess]

If you continue to compare the 33 year old Batman in your head that feels like he's making a difference, to a 45 year old Batman where everything in his life has gone to s*** and has realised that his contribution in his life has amounted to nothing, then you're going to struggle to understand that.

So you're saying I shouldn't expect Batman to act like Batman? Gotcha.

 

[Slade W]

The other thing it shows though is that Lex > Batman. Which is how it should be.

There are very few people that should be able to outsmart Batman, and Lex would certainly be one of the few people capable of it. However, the movie did not make Lex look like a genius in the manner in which he manipulated The Dark Knight, but rather, it made Batman look like an idiot. I would say that is most peoples problem with how it went down.

 

[javonstokess]

There are very few people that should be able to outsmart Batman, and Lex would certainly be one of the few people capable of it. However, the movie did not make Lex look like a genius in the manner in which he manipulated The Dark Knight, but rather, it made Batman look like an idiot. I would say that is most peoples problem with how it went down.

I'm still trying to figure out this master plan that Lex had that was able to befuddle the World's Greatest Detective...

 

[Greens]

To be fair I'm not sure if Snyder actually thought it through that much. That isn't a dig, I'm sincerely not trying to sound pithy, but I honestly don't think the implication crossed his mind.

I agree with this. I think he just wanted a cool-looking weapon to put on display.

You'd think someone else would have brought the implication up to him, though.

 

[titansupes]

I agree with this. I think he just wanted a cool-looking weapon to put on display.

You'd think someone else would have brought the implication up to him, though.

Ah, but according to Snyder, his crew of "comic books dorks" were all urging him to have Batman put a bullet between KGBeast's eyes... So they can't be the best advisers for these sorts of things...