Does Batman v Superman work better as part 2 of a trilogy?

[Milk Tray Guy]

Oh yeah. You could probably do a google search and find some older articles running with the rumor.

It was a bogus and short lived rumor, but at that time, with the release date being pushed back, rumors of everyone from Metallo, to Carrie Kelly, a love interest for Bruce Wayne, and an appearence by Dick Grayson , in addition to the news that Wonder Woman would be included in the film, some fans speculated that the film would be a two-parter.

I'll have a look. Thanks

 

[DrCosmic]

How so?

Well, BvS has a hodgepodge of themes and ideas, but if you follow any thread that goes from MoS to JL, whether it be alien assimilation, Superman finding peace with the life he's chosen, the world's peace with him, Superman learning to take the high road, Lois' quest for truth, all of it breaks in BvS and breaks hard.

I think the Knightmare scene is probably the most straightforward example of horrid worldbuilding, in that it literally borrows from future problems that hinge on a very specific trigger: Superman goes full evil if Lois dies, a trigger that falls apart under the themes of MoS, where he saves lives with or without Lois, and Justice League, where he is fundamentally good and inspirational. These ideas can be reconciled, and are in stories like Injustice, but BvS almost goes out of its way to avoid those character-motivated explanations. And that's just one scene, the whole movie is like this, and that's IF you take BvS' developments seriously, because for some, Superman's sacrifice is too tactially stupid (he could give the spear to Diana, who is likely better with spears), for his sacrifice to mean anything at all. Just really putrid worldbuilding and thematic development.

BvS tries to deconstruct a Superman that has only scarcely been constructed at all. JL simply presumes that he never fell apart at all. Those bookends give additional highlight to how misguided BvS was, and put a harsh light on MoS at the same time. The DCEU Superman trilogy is linked primarily by Superman's presence, but without concern for Superman each film uses him for radically different reasons. JL and MoS only barely go together because they agree that Superman is a hero to his core, but they are in complete opposition on what that actually means for him and for the rest of the world.

What's really crazy? The Randian Superhero that Snyder kept shooting for? Marvel has one. His name is Tony Stark.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I can't believe I am going to say this, but...I agree with The Guard on a point!

BvS was directly about the Superman problem. People were nervous about him and afraid of what he could do. No one knew if he was a force for good, etc. But, when he died, people looked to him as a hero. The struggle of the Superman problem is no longer present because he proved his intentions by sacrificing himself. JL would have been backtracking to cover this ground again. Now the door was open for Superman to be the beloved icon we know.

I don't think they conveyed or portrayed this the best way possible. But, in regards to how the story developed in universe, the Superman problem was resolved in BvS.

But MoS and BvS don't position Superman as a problem to be solved. They are trying to make him a more realistic figure, and show that there will always be consequences to what he does. Sometimes he has no option but to snap necks. This attempt to add complexity is completely absent from Justice League, which is just, 'Yay Superman!'

 

[Spider-Fan]

But MoS and BvS don't position Superman as a problem to be solved. They are trying to make him a more realistic figure, and show that there will always be consequences to what he does. Sometimes he has no option but to snap necks. This attempt to add complexity is completely absent from Justice League, which is just, 'Yay Superman!'

Eh, there is a committee basically dedicated to talking about what to do with him and listening to testimony about his actions, so they are trying to sort out the "Superman problem." But, that committee all died, and Superman ends the day as a savior, so JL doesn't really need to question Superman any further.

JL is a flawed movie. Very, very much a flawed movie. One I don't even like. But, I don't think they needed to beat the dead horse from BvS any further. It was already long dead.

 

[2kt09]

Eh, there is a committee basically dedicated to talking about what to do with him and listening to testimony about his actions, so they are trying to sort out the "Superman problem." But, that committee all died, and Superman ends the day as a savior, so JL doesn't really need to question Superman any further.

JL is a flawed movie. Very, very much a flawed movie. One I don't even like. But, I don't think they needed to beat the dead horse from BvS any further. It was already long dead.

Speaking of "dead", the motif of resurrection definitely needed more impact. Cyborg, Superman, and...supposedly Steppenwolf's own mother...if they were barely going to touch on Doomsday & Lex making this possible.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Eh, there is a committee basically dedicated to talking about what to do with him and listening to testimony about his actions, so they are trying to sort out the "Superman problem." But, that committee all died, and Superman ends the day as a savior, so JL doesn't really need to question Superman any further.

The committee was just illustrating how Superman's action would cause concern among governments, which is one of the ways the first two movies try to be more realistic.

Even Lois questions Supes' actions in BvS.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The committee was just illustrating how Superman's action would cause concern among governments, which is one of the ways the first two movies try to be more realistic.

Even Lois questions Supes' actions in BvS.

Again, all of which are resolved. Why beat the dead horse? Especially when the dead horse is something people already hated?

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Again, all of which are resolved. Why beat the dead horse? Especially when the dead horse is something people already hated?

There're no resolved issues. You can't resolve issues like collateral damage, and the fact that sometimes there are no easy decisions. Man of Steel gave us a Superman who had to execute General Zod. BvS dealt with the collateral damage of Superman finding Zod. And the very fact that such a powerful alien would have an effect on earth.

Sure, audiences didn't like that stuff. I'm not arguing that. People wanted something much more positive and traditional than BvS. I'm just saying it was a jarring U-turn from the previous movies.

 

[The Guard]

Well, BvS has a hodgepodge of themes and ideas, but if you follow any thread that goes from MoS to JL, whether it be alien assimilation, Superman finding peace with the life he's chosen, the world's peace with him, Superman learning to take the high road, Lois' quest for truth, all of it breaks in BvS and breaks hard.

Right, but the point is that the storylines from MOS and BVS, with the exception of Superman's return and rededication to his mission, are essentially resolved in BVS. There's no reason to continue "exploring" them in a film that is not Superman centric.

I think the Knightmare scene is probably the most straightforward example of horrid worldbuilding, in that it literally borrows from future problems that hinge on a very specific trigger: Superman goes full evil if Lois dies, a trigger that falls apart under the themes of MoS, where he saves lives with or without Lois, and Justice League, where he is fundamentally good and inspirational.

These ideas can be reconciled, and are in stories like Injustice, but BvS almost goes out of its way to avoid those character-motivated explanations. And that's just one scene, the whole movie is like this, and that's IF you take BvS' developments seriously, because for some, Superman's sacrifice is too tactially stupid (he could give the spear to Diana, who is likely better with spears), for his sacrifice to mean anything at all. Just really putrid worldbuilding and thematic development.

The worldbuilding in BVS is not limited to the Knightmare sequences. The Knightmare sequences only exist to hint at a possible darker future, solidify Bruce's fears about Superman, and to encourage Bruce to find the league.

I'm not going to touch your argument about thematic development, because you didn't really make one. You just said there's bad thematic development. That's not really an argument.

BvS tries to deconstruct a Superman that has only scarcely been constructed at all.

I think BVS "challenges" Superman more than deconstructs him, as most stories do, presenting their characters with conflict. The film really deconstructs the idea of those with power, period. It extends far beyond just Superman.

JL simply presumes that he never fell apart at all.

...what?

Those bookends give additional highlight to how misguided BvS was, and put a harsh light on MoS at the same time. The DCEU Superman trilogy is linked primarily by Superman's presence, but without concern for Superman each film uses him for radically different reasons. JL and MoS only barely go together because they agree that Superman is a hero to his core, but they are in complete opposition on what that actually means for him and for the rest of the world.

I really think you need to contexualize some of these statements better, because it reads like you're just saying things without supporting them.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

On it's own, Batman v Superman is unavoidably downbeat and disappointed a lot of people. But now we've had Justice League, which is very much the continuation of BvS with what amounts to a happy ending, does it redeem BvS in some ways? Is BvS more effective as the dark middle section of a trilogy than on it's own?

Or...is it just a very bleak, joyless movie which jars horribly with the lightened tone of Justice League?

The only thing I really appreciated from JL was Cavill's Superman. He'd been through a lot in this universe, saving the world on his first day on the job, and killing someone in MOS. Then in BVS he has to deal with the Africa incident, people still angry about Metropolis, fear over people worshiping him, Batman trying to kill him, and then sacrificing himself at the end. He's had a really rough start to his superheroing career.

It's because of this I never thought that Superman coming back from the dead with his memories and personality relatively intact was a big deal.

From the beginning I didn't like the idea of an "evil superman" or "Superman being tempted" plot in Justice League. Having Superman fighting the League out of disorientation, but then coming back to his senses afterwards was good for me.