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

[BatLobster]

MrsKent, you've been crushing it with your posts lately. Kudos.

One minor nitpick- being a reporter isn't really a blue-collar job. It's white-collar by definition. He was raised with more blue-collar values though, which I think is part of the charm there and maybe what you were getting at. The farm boy in the big city.

BvS did a bit of exploration of this with Clark being appalled by Batman's actions and wanting to report on it, while for cynical Perry it's blase and yesterday's news. I do wish that angle in the story had gotten more airtime though. I know there's some Clark investigation stuff that will be in the extended cut, so we'll see.

 

[MadVillainy]

People can relate to Clark Kent. He's an everyman. He works a blue-collar job, he crushes on (and perhaps dates) the spunky girl from work, he doesn't make much money but loves his job, he's a bit awkward. Sure, he can take off all that and be superman, but he chooses not to because he loves to be part of the every day because everyday people inspire him.

The common and the fantastic is already there for film-makers to take advantage of. There's no need to try so hard to add newfangled ways to relate him.

Even as superman, he has issues. They aren't issues of the common man, but they're certainly dramatically interesting. How does superman prioritize the different rescues with so many in need? Does he prepare for galactic threats? How does he keep up hope in the most dire of circumstances? How does he integrate into society as an alien? How does he interact with other heroes? Interesting stuff, if you ask me.

MOS/BvS has attempted to explore some of these and kudos to them for the intent, but the execution (especially in BvS) hasn't been one that focuses enough on superman's feelings in these situations.

The Clark Kent persona has sadly been severely minimized, which is why I think that feeling of "no fun" has come about. Although, I'd say "no charm" might be more accurate. There is something very charming about the contrast between the confidence and heroism of superman and the quiet, awkward, yet endearing commonplace earnestness of Clark. In BvS, we're missing that entirely. It's like they gave us Clark, but only enough to check off a box and say they did. There's no effort or love put into that aspect of his life at all. All he gets to do as Clark is scowl some more (!) and argue with Perry. It's not enough to see any contrast or any sense of why superman wants to be there at all. If that isn't dour enough, the superman persona was also robbed of confidence, joy, and personality in general.

I hate the whole relatibility thing, but you make some very great points here that I couldn't agree with more myself

 

[MrsKent26]

MrsKent, you've been crushing it with your posts lately. Kudos.

One minor nitpick- being a reporter isn't really a blue-collar job. It's white-collar by definition. He was raised with more blue-collar values though, which I think is part of the charm there and maybe what you were getting at. The farm boy in the big city.

BvS did a bit of exploration of this with Clark being appalled by Batman's actions and wanting to report on it, while for cynical Perry it's blase and yesterday's news. I do wish that angle in the story had gotten more airtime though. I know there's some Clark investigation stuff that will be in the extended cut, so we'll see.

Thanks, Lobster.

That was what I meant with blue-collar/White collar. He came from humble, loving beginnings that helped teach him the value of human kindness and why these people are worth saving. It's a simple and timeless story that can be both inspiring enough to stir up some powerful emotions and yet common enough for people to relate to. The best part is that all that is baked right in with superman. There's no need to bring him down to "our level" because he floats down there himself and actually enjoys being there.

 

[Visualiza]

Apologizing for who the character is?

What does that even mean?

When the current iteration of a character is essentially a repudiation of what said character traditionally embodies.

Case in point: When your executive producer thinks that Superman looks "faggy" (Jon Peters' words, not mine), then you have a problem.

So yeah, apologizing sounds about right.

 

[The Guard]

Except that nothing in the film does that.

Why Jon Peters is coming up is beyond me.

 

[baby]

Hi! I love this film so much! I've lurking here since its been anounced and post a little.
I can't understand why it got such hate, seriously, never will.
I loved MoS, that movie made me care about Superman (always loved Batman, and thought Superman was meh) and I think Supes is so well done, he's so good as a person, I mean he inspires Bats and WW to come back to their hero actions again, inspires humanity (the citizens) AND proves to Lex his good (and will prove he's powerfull once he comes back in JL).
Lex wanted them to fight for: 1 if supes kills bats he's not all good (zod doesn't mean in humanity's eyes cause he's a "god" too, and supes had not choice, batman is human), 2 if bats kill supes he's not all powerfull.
I love how MoS is about two fathers and BvS is about two moms.
Absolutly love the mythology here. Cavill is my Superman. I understand that Batman kills, but "men are still good" says everything, he's back in normal. WW rocks. Lex IS a villain, in a CBM, it does looooong time since I've seen one.
This is not the "movie of the moment" it makes u think, a lot. Here in Brazil its a sucsses, my friends loved it too.

 

[Jaxon]

MOS/BvS has attempted to explore some of these and kudos to them for the intent, but the execution (especially in BvS) hasn't been one that focuses enough on superman's feelings in these situations.
.

That's because BvS was laser focussed on showing us the struggle Clark goes through in order to chose between acceptance of an imperfect world or rejection of it. Ultimately he accepted and in his last action became Superman.

 

[Timebomb]

Hi! I love this film so much! I've lurking here since its been anounced and post a little.
I can't understand why it got such hate, seriously, never will.
I loved MoS, that movie made me care about Superman (always loved Batman, and thought Superman was meh) and I think Supes is so well done, he's so good as a person, I mean he inspires Bats and WW to come back to their hero actions again, inspires humanity (the citizens) AND proves to Lex his good (and will prove he's powerfull once he comes back in JL).
Lex wanted them to fight for: 1 if supes kills bats he's not all good (zod doesn't mean in humanity's eyes cause he's a "god" too, and supes had not choice, batman is human), 2 if bats kill supes he's not all powerfull.
I love how MoS is about two fathers and BvS is about two moms.
Absolutly love the mythology here. Cavill is my Superman. I understand that Batman kills, but "men are still good" says everything, he's back in normal. WW rocks. Lex IS a villain, in a CBM, it does looooong time since I've seen one.
This is not the "movie of the moment" it makes u think, a lot. Here in Brazil its a sucsses, my friends loved it too.

Wow. What movie are they showing in Brazil? He inspires WW to go back to her hero ways? I'm pretty sure he did not know who she was until the Doomsday fight and he never actually talked to her. And I'm pretty sure if she could talk to him she would ask "why didn't you give me the spear?"
And it's not just moms. It's mom's named Martha, who both have sons that have some anger issues and like to fight each other for no reason.
I

 

[javonstokess]

If Hollywood was looking for a "darker, realistic, relatable" tone for Superman that still retains the hope and inspirational values, they should have looked towards the "Superman: Secret Identity" mini-series by Busiek & Immonem.

Awesome "take" on how Superman would exist in the "real world". Just take that story and add more of the traditional aspects of the Superman lore and they'd have an incredible movie that felt real, but retained the charm of the comic.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Yup. I will take Hackman over Eisenberg's wannabe Heath Ledger anyday of the week.

Wait... is that what he was going for?

 

[The Batman]

Yeah, that type of "Teh deep and complex, yet flashy" performance that Ledger pulled off in TDK.

 

[Visualiza]

Except that nothing in the film does that.

Why Jon Peters is coming up is beyond me.

I disagree. And Peters came up because his words are topical. When a producer on the last three films (one of which failed to materialize) doesn't respect your protagonist, that mentality will inevitably filter down to the crew that he employs.

You may not like the answers that you get, but remember, you asked the question.

 

[MrsKent26]

I'm not sure I'd use the word "apologizing" for the treatment of superman because it's more covert than that. I'd say they're trying to update and redesign him for what they see as a crucial marketing ploy and make him seem like something else that happens to be less unique, thematically powerful, and ultimately less recognizable than the original character. The worse part about this is that it seems to be largely unnecessary and unwelcome. The attitude of the higher-ups is that superman needs to be fixed or altered to gain popularity, but given the response to this repackaged superman, a large portion of the audience doesn't mirror that. It would seem that his core characteristics, timeless traits in essence, don't need altering (highlighting is what they really need) because those things are the bulk of what displeased audiences and critics alike are asking for and judging this movie harshly for excluding. Redesigns/updating are all well and good...if they're necessary and if the updates are actually reflective of things that are truly outdated (hope, optimism, being a good guy aren't and never will be outdated).

In short, they seem to be making a valiant effort at doing something that not only doesn't need to be done, but is actually causing more harm than good for the superman brand. It'd be nice if they'd learn from this...

 

[batfreakforever]

Yeah, that type of "Teh deep and complex, yet flashy" performance that Ledger pulled off in TDK.

Don't you mean "The" and not "Teh".

 

[The Guard]

I disagree. And Peters came up because his words are topical. When a producer on the last three films (one of which failed to materialize) doesn't respect your protagonist, that mentality will inevitably filter down to the crew that he employs.

You may not like the answers that you get, but remember, you asked the question.

You disagree about what? Where in the film does the film apologize for something about Superman?

Jon Peters has been a producer in name only on the Superman movies for some time.

But we're to believe that Jon Peters, who thought Superman's blue and red skintight outfit was too gay...somehow influenced this film...where Superman's outfit is...skintight blue and red?

I don't follow the logic.

 

[Martha]

Edit

And yeah, I agree that Peters clearly didn't have any say in the film. You can gather as much from the Nic Cage documentary. It sounds as if he got shut out years ago.

 

[titansupes]

^ Nice screen name.

 

[lujho]

You disagree about what? Where in the film does the film apologize for something about Superman?

Jon Peters has been a producer in name only on the Superman movies for some time.

But we're to believe that Jon Peters, who thought Superman's blue and red skintight outfit was too gay...somehow influenced this film...where Superman's outfit is...skintight blue and red?

I don't follow the logic.

I don't see Visualiza's mention of Peters intending to imply he had any influence on BvS. It was just a previous example, from previous films. Visualiza could easily have used Sony's Tom Rothman (the guy who didn't want Sentinals in X-Men movies because they were too silly) as an example instead.

 

[The Guard]

Then why make that point at all, in relation to this film?

 

[king666]

I'm not sure I'd use the word "apologizing" for the treatment of superman because it's more covert than that. I'd say they're trying to update and redesign him for what they see as a crucial marketing ploy and make him seem like something else that happens to be less unique, thematically powerful, and ultimately less recognizable than the original character. The worse part about this is that it seems to be largely unnecessary and unwelcome. The attitude of the higher-ups is that superman needs to be fixed or altered to gain popularity, but given the response to this repackaged superman, a large portion of the audience doesn't mirror that. It would seem that his core characteristics, timeless traits in essence, don't need altering (highlighting is what they really need) because those things are the bulk of what displeased audiences and critics alike are asking for and judging this movie harshly for excluding. Redesigns/updating are all well and good...if they're necessary and if the updates are actually reflective of things that are truly outdated (hope, optimism, being a good guy aren't and never will be outdated).

In short, they seem to be making a valiant effort at doing something that not only doesn't need to be done, but is actually causing more harm than good for the superman brand. It'd be nice if they'd learn from this...

Another great post!

 

[superhey]

I like it

 

[Micromind]

When the current iteration of a character is essentially a repudiation of what said character traditionally embodies.

Case in point: When your executive producer thinks that Superman looks "faggy" (Jon Peters' words, not mine), then you have a problem.

So yeah, apologizing sounds about right.

I disagree. And Peters came up because his words are topical. When a producer on the last three films (one of which failed to materialize) doesn't respect your protagonist, that mentality will inevitably filter down to the crew that he employs.

You may not like the answers that you get, but remember, you asked the question.

Man, Jon Peters was not allowed to give any input or ideas during Superman Returns, then in MoS, Snyder even refused him entry on the set.

Jon Peters is a producer in name only for both SR and MoS, and he is not involved at all, so what he thinks amounts to nothing.

 

[Paradox1]

So I finally got to see this and I gotta say, I liked it. It was a good film and definitely could of been better. It hooked me in the first 15 mins or so then I felt like it started to sputter and let loose of the reigns somewhere in the middle. i thought the final act brought me back but so much of that was spoiled.

There wasn't a lot of Batman v Superman in this movie. I see the parallel between super power nations who are odds and how those problems could be solved by talking and finding common ground. Yet it would of been nice to have them talk to each other.

I didn't have any problem with the actor portrayals. Ben obviously stood out and when it was called for he went to a dark place. I liked Gal in the role and Henry Cavil continues to be a favorite of mine. I loved Jeremy Irons as Alfred, I could watch a movie with just those two.

Jesse Eisenberg was more of a mad scientist Lex than 1980's business man. It took some getting use because I haven't seen that kind of Luthor since the super friends. Once I understood what he was going for then all his quirks and spurts of madness made sense. So in that regard he did it pretty well, I totally bought him as this mad genius. He really was a 12 level intellect, he knew everybody's secret and how to play on their weaknesses.

I'd give the movie a 7/10 I have a feeling the more I watch it the more fond I'll become of it. When I first saw Man of Steel I gave it a low 7 but after repeat viewings I'm closer to a 9. Once a Blue ray version is available I'm have to watch this and MOS back to back one day.

 

[MaceB]

I'm not sure I'd use the word "apologizing" for the treatment of superman because it's more covert than that. I'd say they're trying to update and redesign him for what they see as a crucial marketing ploy and make him seem like something else that happens to be less unique, thematically powerful, and ultimately less recognizable than the original character. The worse part about this is that it seems to be largely unnecessary and unwelcome. The attitude of the higher-ups is that superman needs to be fixed or altered to gain popularity, but given the response to this repackaged superman, a large portion of the audience doesn't mirror that. It would seem that his core characteristics, timeless traits in essence, don't need altering (highlighting is what they really need) because those things are the bulk of what displeased audiences and critics alike are asking for and judging this movie harshly for excluding. Redesigns/updating are all well and good...if they're necessary and if the updates are actually reflective of things that are truly outdated (hope, optimism, being a good guy aren't and never will be outdated).

In short, they seem to be making a valiant effort at doing something that not only doesn't need to be done, but is actually causing more harm than good for the superman brand. It'd be nice if they'd learn from this...

I have to say, I carry the unliked opinion that Superman is a pretty two dimensional boring character. I keep coming back to the question, "why is Clark/Superman a hero?" And the only answer that I can come up with is that he's a good old country boy who was raised good and as such does good. His motivation for being heroic is usually, "that's just the way he is." And I agree that theres a certain degree of charm there and it can be done compellingly, but i suspect that that is at the heart of why filmmakers have a hard time with him.
Superman, to a certain degree, is a product of his time. In the 1940s, he was very Americana... the good man fighting for a noble cause because it's the right thing to do. In this day and age, when people struggle just to know what the right thing is... it's hard to really appreciate a character who knows what to do just because he was raised well.
Of course, if you dig into the literature, there's human weaknesses and insecurities to be found in Clark/Superman... but when you focus on them, a large part of the fan community revolts because it's not the perfect superhuman interpretation that they grew up with. It's a catch 22.

 

[Paradox1]

I have to say, I carry the unliked opinion that Superman is a pretty two dimensional boring character. I keep coming back to the question, "why is Clark/Superman a hero?" And the only answer that I can come up with is that he's a good old country boy who was raised good and as such does good. His motivation for being heroic is usually, "that's just the way he is." And I agree that theres a certain degree of charm there and it can be done compellingly, but i suspect that that is at the heart of why filmmakers have a hard time with him.
Superman, to a certain degree, is a product of his time. In the 1940s, he was very Americana... the good man fighting for a noble cause because it's the right thing to do. In this day and age, when people struggle just to know what the right thing is... it's hard to really appreciate a character who knows what to do just because he was raised well.
Of course, if you dig into the literature, there's human weaknesses and insecurities to be found in Clark/Superman... but when you focus on them, a large part of the fan community revolts because it's not the perfect superhuman interpretation that they grew up with. It's a catch 22.

Max Landis has a great take on Superman In his comic American Alien. The crutch of his take being Superman isn't really a hero. All the heroic acts he does is like his charity work.