Cinematic Civil War:MCU vs DCCU - - - - Part 13

[Lencho01]

Save the DCEU!!!!!

As Kane said...

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Batman and Supermans conflict was so poorly done.

The film built it up as opposing philosophies. Kal thought Bruce was too brutal, that he was no better than the criminala themselves. Bruce truly believed an alien with all that power couldn't be incorruptible. That he was a ticking time bomb.

But in the end they were basically tricked into fighting each other. They barely said a word to each other. Does Superman even know why Batman wants to kill him? Does Batman realise why Superman is attacking him?

Then we have the whole "Martha" debacle. But even after that... THEY BARELY SPEAK TO EACH OTHER?! The film doesn't even acknowledge that these guys had totally opposite viewpoints and philosophies about justice! That Batman was more than ready to execute this alien hero because of some crackpot "1% chance" idea. But all of a sudden they are best buds!

The whole conflict was just completely undercooked and muddled. Miller's comic did a better job.

Personally speaking the conflict between Bruce and Kal bothered me for many reasons but one of my biggest is the shear hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance on display with their reasons for fighting each other. Here let me explain...

Bruce thinks that Kal is an untrustworthy, distant, impulsive supposed "hero" who could turn on the people at any moment and his actions recklessly cause tons of collateral damage that endanger lives.

Kal thinks that Bruce is an untrustworthy, distant, impulsive supposed "hero" who could turn on the people at any moment and his actions recklessly cause tons of collateral damage that endanger lives.

Do you see the problem here?

Agreed. Can't believe they do their feud so bad. Script was mess.

 

[DrCosmic]

So you definitely want to see his boot connect with Banner's jaw? Just making sure. Hey, I'm down. t:

Lol, not necessarily that, not so much a feat there, but the fact that Cap had the moxy to go toe to toe with THE HULK, in a similar way to how Blonsky did in TIH, but with a better shot at keeping him occupied longer because of the shield and the lack of suicidal tendencies. I would loved to have seen that, but having Widow outrun him was okay... I guess, and Steve was needed for the Cap and Tony team up which is a crucial part of the Avengers mathematics.

How people think that Steve and Tony aren't friends is a little odd. No one I know has the interactions that Steven and Tony have in AoU with a 'a coworker they can't stand' or any such thing.

Personally speaking the conflict between Bruce and Kal bothered me for many reasons but one of my biggest is the shear hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance on display with their reasons for fighting each other. Here let me explain...

Bruce thinks that Kal is an untrustworthy, distant, impulsive supposed "hero" who could turn on the people at any moment and his actions recklessly cause tons of collateral damage that endanger lives.

Kal thinks that Bruce is an untrustworthy, distant, impulsive supposed "hero" who could turn on the people at any moment and his actions recklessly cause tons of collateral damage that endanger lives.

Do you see the problem here?

This is a much better summation of the lack of contrast than I was able to generate. They are too much the same character, and that is by design, as MOS was intended to be like The Dark Knight, as is the new Batman. It might as well be Robin vs Batgirl.

As much as I enjoyed parts of Civil War, I thought the overall conflict between Cap and Stark was very poorly done as well, maybe worse than BvS's.

First off, the conflict between the two is just Stark trying to kill Bucky, with Cap trying to protect him from being murdered.

Secondly, Stark's vengeance is not something the movie was dealing with prior. The movie was dealing with accords, a mystery regarding the Winter Soldiers, and Black Panther's vengeance. So having a last minute revelation and a vengeful Tony in the climax just seems like soap opera drama to me. But the drama isn't even very dramatic (despite some good acting on RDJ's part) because Cap and Stark weren't good friends, and Cap's decision not to tell Tony wasn't even shown on screen. Also, these guys were ready to fight the first day they met. Stark said he wanted to punch him in his teeth earlier that day over something unrelated. The fact that they're fighting now doesn't ring very tragic to me.

Interesting points. It feels weird to downplay the fact that Tony was "just" trying to kill Cap's bestie. That sounds intense, and it played out that way, because if it hadn't played out as very intense, it would have been out of character.

But I simply disagree that they weren't good friends. Their conflicts from Avengers through Civil War only make sense in the context that they are close. A random coworker can't come up to me giving me a speech about how "we should have done this together" because, no, that's not in the job description that I wrote for myself. Some jerk I'm stuck with can't come to me saying "I don't trust a guy without a dark side" unless he knows I want his trust.

So when Tony in Civil War says "so was I." It can read as a revelation, because of their conflict, or from Cap's perspective, you could have been thinking Tony doesn't care about Steve or what Steve thinks of him. But it's not Cap's line, it's Tony's so I, personally, have to reckon with that notion in the context of Tony's friendships, and the tension that he has with Steve isn't any more intense than what he has with Pepper, or Rhodey or Happy or even the little Tennessee kid. You can be surprised along with Cap that Tony considered them friends, but to say that Tony shouldn't feel friendship with people he argues with all the time, is kind of inserting your own reading into things.

At least, those are my observations of Tony's friendships. Perhaps you see him differently based on some scenes I've overlooked.

While it's true that the Civil War film doesn't delve too deeply into the nitty gritty of political ramifications of the accords, it's worth noting that the Bucky conflict isn't unrelated. It acts as a microcosm of the the ideals at play. Cap's big objection to the idea of registration is essentially that he wants to remain autonomous and the authorities want Bucky executed on sight. Ergo fighting over Bucky is a straight up dramatisation of the autonomy vs authority argument that the accords represent. It's true that in the end, the film basically falls entirely on Cap's side, but the basis of the conflict is also strongly grounded on the previous films (Cap's experiences with corruption from TWS and Tony's experiences with disastrous autonomy in AoU).

Hmmm... I could see this, to a degree. The reason this fight feels disconnected from the rest of the movie is that it's only an allegory for the hook of the film. The fight with Bucky isn't driven by the accords, it's just a vague reference to them, and even then, Cap isn't driven by a need for autonomy, he's driven by a need to protect his friend, essentially to have authority over Tony, while Tony isn't driven by authority, he's driven by his need to do whatever he wants. Someone earlier posited that Steve had become logical, but Steve had always been logical. Tony does indeed go from logical to driven entirely by passion. And the film makes the fight about that.

So, yeah, it's not completely disjointed, but it is separate, and calls upon narrative from other films for it's weight, as opposed to building on the narrative of the film up to that point.

Starks assassination was probably the dumbest thing in the whole film. Surveillance camera with a mic on some obscure road captures how Bucky fakes car accident, then he freaking shots the camera with a gun. So it looks completely "accident" for cops. Honest Trailer proof. Totally.

No sound, but yeah, agreed, convenient surveillance camera is convenient. Cover up is only vaguely implied, and in a different movie at that.

 

[misslane38]

Personally speaking the conflict between Bruce and Kal bothered me for many reasons but one of my biggest is the shear hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance on display with their reasons for fighting each other. Here let me explain...

Bruce thinks that Kal is an untrustworthy, distant, impulsive supposed "hero" who could turn on the people at any moment and his actions recklessly cause tons of collateral damage that endanger lives.

Kal thinks that Bruce is an untrustworthy, distant, impulsive supposed "hero" who could turn on the people at any moment and his actions recklessly cause tons of collateral damage that endanger lives.

Do you see the problem here?

There isn't a problem. Bruce thinks Kal is those things, but Kal isn't those things. Kal thinks Bruce is those things, and Bruce is those things. Furthermore, neither one of them sees themselves as in the wrong. It's like conversations here. There isn't a problem if you think I'm wrong, and I think you're wrong, because obviously you think you're right and I think I'm right. It's not as if we're both obviously wrong, and know that we are, but are arguing anyway. It's also important to note that the film addresses these issues. At the library gala, Bruce calls Clark on what he thinks is the hypocrisy of going after Gotham's Batman when Metropolis' Superman should be of similar concern.

Clark: What's your position on the bat vigilante in Gotham?
Bruce: Daily Planet. Wait, do I own this one? Or was that the other guy?
Clark: Civil liberties has been trampled on in your city. Good people living in fear.
Bruce: Don't believe everything you hear, son.
Clark: I've seen it, Mr. Wayne. He thinks he's above the law.
Bruce: The Daily Planet criticizing those who think they're above the laws. A little hypocritical, wouldn't you say? Considering every time your hero saves a cat out of a tree, you write a puff piece editorial, about an alien who...if he wanted to, could burn the whole place down. There wouldn't be a damn thing we can do to stop him.
Clark: Most of the world doesn't share your opinion, Mr. Wayne.
Bruce: Maybe it's the Gotham City and me, we just have a bad history with freaks dressed like clowns.

Also, when Superman feels Batman needs to be stopped immediately, he tells him to bury the bat. Yet, as soon as Superman sees that he could be the problem (after the Capitol bombing), he does the same thing to himself. He seriously considers letting go of Superman. When he returns, he doesn't fight Batman for the same reasons. He seeks Bruce's help in saving his mother, and when Bruce has his turn to see himself more clearly (reflected as the villain of his own childhood nightmare as Lois pleads for Superman, explains the Martha situation that gives Bruce a chance to save a son's mother), Bruce ceases his crusade, too.

no, because for everything he knew before CW, they died in a car crash.
for someone, who sees a lot of nuances in movies where they don't exist, you miss a lot of stuff in others, it seems

First of all, we can agree to disagree about whether nuances exist, but you can't tell me that they don't as if that's a fact. And I didn't miss anything in Civil War, as far as I'm aware. I had forgotten what Tony believed about his parents' deaths as established in what I believe was the first Iron Man, but given that that was almost 10 years ago, I think you can forgive my memory glitch and appreciate why I would have liked Civil War to remind us of the details before it became such an important pivot point in the movie.

Anyway, my primary question was whether Tony knew his parents were murdered before the reveal that Bucky had killed the Starks. Knowing if Tony was learning they were murdered for the first time at the moment, or knowing that Tony was finally getting answers to who had killed his parents would have affected how I felt and how attuned I was with him in that moment. Without that knowledge, I felt a little distance from him. As far as I know, I didn't miss anything in Civil War that, prior to the reveal, had reminded viewers like me that Tony only thought his parents had died in an accident. All I got from that simulation scene was that his parents died when Tony was in college, and he was troubled by it. Now, as others have pointed out, it's clear from events in earlier Iron Man movies that Tony believed it only to have been an accident.

And, yes, I admit I had forgotten that. Missing "a lot of stuff" and forgetting one thing are two different things, especially when to miss something means to have not noticed it while to forget is to have noticed but not remembered. And, frankly, to forget something from a movie that is almost a decade old seems like a forgivable offense, so to speak, and not cause for you to basically insult and invalidate my approach and thoughts about things.

The Superman/Batman conflict falls apart for many reasons already mentioned but arguably the biggest is that neither party is innocent of what they accuse the other of. Superman considers Batman too brutal while throwing people through concrete walls and Batman looks down on the collateral damage caused by Superman while carelessly mowing the Batmobile through Gotham crashing buildings a plenty. Throw in the fact that neither character shares any substantial dialogue with the other and the conflict exposes itself as entirely artificial.

Superman didn't throw anyone through concrete walls. He broke the wall with his arm and flew the man away. There is no explicit proof that he hurt that man at all, and we at least have his superpowers to explain how that might be possible. With Bruce, he is torturing and branding people in ways that put them in danger; he does this knowingly, so it's not collateral damage. You also missed that part of the reason Batman is so concerned about Superman is that he sees and projects a lot of his own flaws onto Superman. Bruce calls himself a criminal, and he is aware that his 20 years of fruitless work in Gotham has made him adopt new, harsher rules. He has seen how he's gotten people like his Robin, Jason Todd, killed and how that has hardened him. His worry about Superman is that, like him, he will change for the worse, and he believes that attitude in the hands of someone as powerful as Superman is a threat he has to preemptively defeat. The one time the characters do converse at Lex's library gala, they address these issues head on (see quoted dialogue above).

 

[TeeKay]

Bruce and Clark had one intereaction lol The other was Superman threatening Batman. There was never going to be conflict. Lex forced Superman's hand to fight Batman. Thats how poorly written it was.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Actually, if there's one thing I'm glad for in BvS it's that Lex was the architect. I don't think it was done well, but I'm very glad it wasn't just Batman ready to kill Superman through an honest misunderstanding.

I think Lex should have had leverage over Batman too (for instance, he could have had him convinced Superman had hostages or schemes in place that made the situation more critical for Bats. Maybe he convinces Batman another Zod is coming for another superpowered smackdown. This makes the situation more imminent and it makes Batman see himself as the sole protector of Earth). As it stands Batman had no reason to need the feud settled that night. And with more planning Bruce could have done it without feeling the need to kill Supes. He could have gone into it ready to capture and imprison Superman. Because Batman shouldn't be a killer.

Anyway, it's been a few since I've seen it now, I probably shouldnt really be analyzing.

 

[misslane38]

Bruce and Clark had one intereaction lol The other was Superman threatening Batman. There was never going to be conflict. Lex forced Superman's hand to fight Batman. Thats how poorly written it was.

Why is it funny or wrong for them to have one interaction prior to the denouement? It's representative of some real life conflicts where people can build up antipathy toward someone or some group without actually having met or talked to that person or members of that group. The fact that Superman has to be forced into conflict is the optimum path to take because having it any other way would truly be poor writing and poor characterization.

Superman would never fight someone, especially a vulnerable human, for ideological reasons. He can dominate a human with minimal effort, so in that sense there would be no fight. It's also impossible to change someone's mind with physical force. The only outcomes of a mutually consented to fight would be Superman either getting killed from Batman's kryptonite or Superman overcoming Batman and bringing him to prison for his crimes (he could have also killed him as Lex wanted). Batman dying or going to jail is a cynical narrative killer. It means making his redemption a much harder, if not nearly impossible, hill to climb, and it means no Batman in the Justice League. You don't solve problems or make friends with fists.

What we got instead speaks to conflicts in our own world. Sometimes people end up clashing with others because they have been manipulated by the media or are suffering because of personal issues in their own lives, such as psychological trauma and a sense of powerlessness or just wanting to protect our families from violence, hunger, and pain. Often these conflicts are with groups or individuals we may have never met whether they're politicians, followers of a particular religion, people of different races or sexual orientations, or people from other countries. Conflicts of this nature tend to be exacerbated by media coverage and by lack of direct communication/interaction.

What the movie and the Batman/Superman resolution shows us is that the first step toward healing is to be willing to apologize (Superman), to recognize our common humanity (Martha), and to work together (Trinity) so we can fight the real evils instead of letting other people divide us and letting our fears overcome our hope.

 

[The Joker]

Bruce and Clark had one intereaction lol The other was Superman threatening Batman. There was never going to be conflict. Lex forced Superman's hand to fight Batman. Thats how poorly written it was.

But you don't understand if there's even 1% of a chance that Superman could turn bad then he must be murdered A.S.A.P.!!!! Unless his Mom's name is Martha. Then it's ok.

 

[kguillou]

Exactly. Now full disclosure, even as a fan of BvS, I admit the writing of the conflict wasnt as strong or clear as it needed to be, especially for a mainstream summer blockbuster. But like misslane38 said, Supes would never challenge someone, especially a human being like Bruce on ideology because he could end him in 2 seconds. With Cap and Ironman, you could have a passionate fueled brawl because the two are on the same playing field but with Superman, its really difficult to put him in an offensive position against someone so physically inferior as Batman. Not without manipulation. Lex just needed to get Superman in the same room as Batman and he knew Batman would take care of the rest and instigate him into a brawl.

Superman said his piece when he crashed the batmobile but all that did is validate Bruce's ignorant fear of this alien.

The fight wasnt so much a fight on ideology as it was one man's rampant fear of the unknown until he realized this alien who he was about to kill was more human than he was. I think we, as fans, WANTED it to be about ideology, we wanted that "Daredevil vs Punisher" argument, but thats not what fueled the fight between them.

 

[TeeKay]

But you don't understand if there's even 1% of a chance that Superman could turn bad then he must be murdered A.S.A.P.!!!! Unless his Mom's name is Martha. Then it's ok.

WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?!!!!!

 

[Doctor Octopus]

lol Superman already kill defenceless human being when he smash him through walls at start of movie. He have no problem killing humans.

 

[misslane38]

But you don't understand if there's even 1% of a chance that Superman could turn bad then he must be murdered A.S.A.P.!!!! Unless his Mom's name is Martha. Then it's ok.

Nope. Batman didn't stop trying to kill Superman because his mother's name was Martha. He stopped trying to kill Superman because he realized that if he did, then he would be the real monster. He would be the man who takes away another's beloved and let's someone's mother die. Batman's 1 percent rationale was rooted in his misunderstanding of Superman as a dehumanized "other." He viewed him as even less than a man. Discovering that Superman had someone (a human) who loved him and a mother (a human) who loved him and needed him gave Bruce perspective he didn't have before when he made that 1 percent speech. The chance to "Save Martha" was a tiny light of redemption for Bruce. Simplifying to Superman and Batman just letting bygones be bygones because they were sons of Martha is reductive and dishonest.

WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?!!!!!

Still lame.

 

[misslane38]

lol Superman already kill defenceless human being when he smash him through walls at start of movie. He have no problem killing humans.

Superman did not kill the warlord. He said he didn't kill those men. Superman smashed himself through the walls and took the warlord with him.

 

[TeeKay]

lol Superman already kill defenceless human being when he smash him through walls at start of movie. He have no problem killing humans.

He was pummelling Batman through solid concrete so.

 

[misslane38]

He was pummelling Batman through solid concrete so.

And he clearly exerted only enough force to subdue Batman not kill him. He states upfront that if he wanted Batman dead, then he would be dead already.

 

[TeeKay]

I mean even when he threw him at the Bat signal, he did it with enough care so Batman would not get injured.

 

[The Joker]

Nope. Batman didn't stop trying to kill Superman because his mother's name was Martha. He stopped trying to kill Superman because he realized that if he did, then he would be the real monster. He would be the man who takes away another's beloved and let's someone's mother die. Batman's 1 percent rationale was rooted in his misunderstanding of Superman as a dehumanized "other." He viewed him as even less than a man. Discovering that Superman had someone (a human) who loved him and a mother (a human) who loved him and needed him gave Bruce perspective he didn't have before when he made that 1 percent speech. The chance to "Save Martha" was a tiny light of redemption for Bruce. Simplifying to Superman and Batman just letting bygones be bygones because they were sons of Martha is reductive and dishonest.

Right, because Batman is so mind numbingly stupid that he only considered at that moment that Superman could have someone who cares about him somewhere. And because having a mother magically erases the possibility that Superman could reign down death and destruction on the world.

This movie was just too sophisticated for me. We're so lucky to have you here to explain the hidden depths so many missed.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Superman did not kill the warlord. He said he didn't kill those men. Superman smashed himself through the walls and took the warlord with him.

lol then why he bother smashing warlord through walls if he not mean to kill him. He just a defenceless human. Smashing him through walls is like using sledge hammer to swat a fly.

 

[The Joker]

misslane, no offense but if there's a flaw mentioned about BvS, you will go above and beyond to try and defend it. It's amazing.

 

[misslane38]

Right, because Batman is so mind numbingly stupid that he only considered at that moment that Superman could have someone who cares about him somewhere. And because having a mother magically erases the possibility that Superman could reign down death and destruction on the world.

Why is it stupid for Batman to think that Superman didn't have any attachments to humanity? Superman has to avoid linking himself too closely with individual humans because they could expose his secret identity and them to danger. As a result of this, and Superman's being new on the scene, it's natural for Batman to assume that Superman lacks the same connection to humanity and vulnerabilities of humans. Also, it's not that learning Superman had a Martha that he loved and that needed saving erased the possibility that Superman could destroy the world. It changed Bruce's perspective on that possibility. Before, he feared it so much he was willing to kill. Now, he was more hopeful and willing to check himself before acting on such a fear.

This movie was just too sophisticated for me. We're so lucky to have you here to explain the hidden depths so many missed.

There's no need for this kind of nasty sarcasm.

 

[The Joker]

Why is it stupid for Batman to think that Superman didn't have any attachments to humanity? Superman has to avoid linking himself too closely with individual humans because they could expose his secret identity and them to danger. As a result of this, and Superman's being new on the scene, it's natural for Batman to assume that Superman lacks the same connection to humanity and vulnerabilities of humans. Also, it's not that learning Superman had a Martha that he loved and that needed saving erased the possibility that Superman could destroy the world. It changed Bruce's perspective on that possibility. Before, he feared it so much he was willing to kill. Now, he was more hopeful and willing to check himself before acting on such a fear.

Because he doesn't know diddly squat about Superman. For all he knows Superman has a whole surrogate family with a wife and kids somewhere. Nobody fights for a race of people's safety if they have no attachments to them in some way. That's common sense. But Batman in BvS doesn't do common sense. He doesn't think smart. He doesn't act smart. His whole basis for wanting Superman dead is pure ridiculousness that anyone with half a brain would realize.

Why Superman having a mother would change Batman's perspective on the risk that Superman could still annihilate humanity doesn't make a lick of sense. Some of the worst killers in the world have had emotional attachments to their mothers or family.

There's no need for this kind of nasty sarcasm.

Oh chill out, it's not nasty, it's just plain sarcasm. If there's a flaw discussed in here about BvS you are there to try and explain why the rest of us are wrong about it.

It's practically a running joke at this stage.

 

[misslane38]

lol then why he bother smashing warlord through walls if he not mean to kill him. He just a defenceless human. Smashing him through walls is like using sledge hammer to swat a fly.

He's just taking him out of the building and the area. He, Superman, is smashing through walls. The man he is holding is not and is under his protection. He's not swatting anything. He's picking up and moving someone, and unless you have explicit proof showing otherwise, then it's only fair to assume, especially based on Clark's later testimony to Lois, that the film's intent was not to show Superman killing that man. Choosing to believe otherwise without evidence and with dialogue suggesting the opposite seems like a deliberate misreading of the film to justify an unfounded hatred for it.

 

[OcStat]

Nope. Batman didn't stop trying to kill Superman because his mother's name was Martha. He stopped trying to kill Superman because he realized that if he did, then he would be the real monster. He would be the man who takes away another's beloved and let's someone's mother die. Batman's 1 percent rationale was rooted in his misunderstanding of Superman as a dehumanized "other." He viewed him as even less than a man. Discovering that Superman had someone (a human) who loved him and a mother (a human) who loved him and needed him gave Bruce perspective he didn't have before when he made that 1 percent speech. The chance to "Save Martha" was a tiny light of redemption for Bruce. Simplifying to Superman and Batman just letting bygones be bygones because they were sons of Martha is reductive and dishonest.

I've asked this before but have yet to get a solid answer. How is it Lois Lane was able to discover what the World's Greatest Detective could not?

For all he knows Superman has a whole surrogate family with a wife and kids somewhere. Nobody fights for a race of people's safety if they have no attachments to them in some way. That's common sense. But Batman in BvS doesn't do common sense. He doesn't think smart. He doesn't act smart.

Exactly.

 

[misslane38]

misslane, no offense but you are unintentionally comedic gold around these parts. Watching you bend over backwards trying to explain away the horrible errors of BvS' writing is like watching Trump supporters try to explain why he'll be an awesome President.

Don't say no offense when what you're saying is offensive. Comparing me to Trump supporters and dismissing me instead of just disagreeing with me in a civil way is a poor way to approach discussion. Let's not make this get personal and instead stick to discussing the films rather than each other.

Because he doesn't know diddly squat about Superman. For all he knows Superman has a whole surrogate family with a wife and kids somewhere. Nobody fights for a race of people's safety if they have no attachments to them in some way. That's common sense. But Batman in BvS doesn't do common sense.

That is the point about prejudice. It's judging people without really knowing them. I think someone could want to be a hero and want to save people without having direct attachments, and for Bruce the Martha moment was about more than just learning something about Superman. It was mainly about seeing himself more clearly. He saw himself in the position of the man who killed his parents, standing there with a weapon as a woman cried out for her beloved and a son cried out for his mother. He saw himself and Superman more clearly and realized that even if there still was a 1% chance Superman could turn into a threat later on, he would rather hold onto the hope that he wouldn't than give into his fears and become the man of his nightmares.

Why Superman having a mother would change Batman's perspective on the risk that Superman could still annihilate humanity doesn't make a lick of sense. Some of thr worst killers in the world have had emotional attachments to their mothers.

Again, it doesn't change Batman's assessment of risk. He still believes there is a 1% chance Superman could turn on humanity. It's just now he'd rather focus on the 99% chance he won't, so be an optimist, rather than focus on the 1% and be a pessimist. He is shifting his perspective because he realized that what was warping his perspective and his judgement were his own issues and his ignorance about who Superman really was.

Oh chill out, it's not nasty, it's just plain sarcasm. If there's a flaw discussed in here about BvS you are there to try and explain why the rest of us are wrong about it.

It's practically a running joke at this stage.

Let's just agree to disagree. We're all here sharing our opinions. Right now all I see you doing is something close to what Batman did before his epiphany. You are assuming we are different, when we are the same. If there are perceived positives for the film, there are those like you who are there to try and explain why those of us who like the film are wrong. If there are flaws, I and those like me are there to try and explain why we think the opposite. It's just a difference of opinion, and I would appreciate not being teased for that.

 

[Bats123]

Nope. Batman didn't stop trying to kill Superman because his mother's name was Martha. He stopped trying to kill Superman because he realized that if he did, then he would be the real monster. He would be the man who takes away another's beloved and let's someone's mother die. Batman's 1 percent rationale was rooted in his misunderstanding of Superman as a dehumanized "other." He viewed him as even less than a man. Discovering that Superman had someone (a human) who loved him and a mother (a human) who loved him and needed him gave Bruce perspective he didn't have before when he made that 1 percent speech. The chance to "Save Martha" was a tiny light of redemption for Bruce. Simplifying to Superman and Batman just letting bygones be bygones because they were sons of Martha is reductive and dishonest.



Still lame.

1.Really? then why did he stop immediately after hearing "MARTHA"
2.Funny how he didnt think about that when he killed all those thugs, im sure they had mothers and children too.
3.You're right, its the lamest way i've seen a fight end in movie history. It's earned its meme status.