BvS Is anyone else not excited about Superman and Batman? I feel nothing but dread.

[The Question]

So yes, originally Zod got sucked into The Phantom Zone with the others but I just felt it was unsatisfying and so did Zack.

That explains why the end fight feels so tacked on.

I think the original ending would have been much better than what we got.

 

[Krumm]

That explains why the end fight feels so tacked on.

I think the original ending would have been much better than what we got.

Eh, it would have been a little too simple for me. I'm glad for the controversy.

 

[DorneyDave]

Yeah, I was happy with the ending. I agree that the end fight felt like "too much" at moments. Mainly because the Smallville battle showed us everything and was so great. The end fight with Zod just didn't have the same impact. Well, until a certain neck snap. That was great.

 

[Smallville13]

That explains why the end fight feels so tacked on.

I think the original ending would have been much better than what we got.

I think combining them would have worked best. Forget the whole World Engine in the Indian Ocean thing. Just have Superman fighting Zod in Metropolis while the convoy comes in to drop the Phantom Drive. Then have Superman win by pushing Zod into the singularity.

 

[The Question]

Eh, it would have been a little too simple for me. I'm glad for the controversy.

I'm not talking about the killing Zod thing or the controversy surrounding it. While I don't think it was well executed overall, I actually liked the scene where Superman killed Zod. If it had been integrated into the movie better and if it had actually been set up at all, it would have been pretty great.

I'm talking about the end battle with Zod itself. I really hated that fight scene. I found it gratuitous and dull. I think the movie would have been much better if sending the Kryptonians back to the Phantom Zone had been the true climax. You can still have one last fight with Zod as Superman throws him into the portal, and it would have been much shorter.

 

[Krumm]

I'm not talking about the killing Zod thing or the controversy surrounding it. While I don't think it was well executed overall, I actually liked the scene where Superman killed Zod. If it had been integrated into the movie better and if it had actually been set up at all, it would have been pretty great.

I'm talking about the end battle with Zod itself. I really hated that fight scene. I found it gratuitous and dull. I think the movie would have been much better if sending the Kryptonians back to the Phantom Zone had been the true climax. You can still have one last fight with Zod as Superman throws him into the portal, and it would have been much shorter.

While I don't necessarily feel the same about the final fight (at least not to the point of wanting to cut it), it may have helped to have the Zod fight happening simultaneously as the sequence with Hardy, Lois, and Hamilton in the airplane as to not feel so tacked on.

And while you weren't speaking directly about the neck snap, by having Superman send Zod to the Phantom Zone, you obviously lose that moment and I wouldn't sacrifice that.

 

[The Question]

While I don't necessarily feel the same about the final fight (at least not to the point of wanting to cut it), it may have helped to have the Zod fight happening simultaneously as the sequence with Hardy, Lois, and Hamilton in the airplane as to not feel so tacked on.

Yes, exactly, have the end fight with Zod start when Superman crashes into Zod's ship to stop him from bringing down the plane, instead of having Zod disappear for five minutes just to show up again after the portal closes.

I mean, heck, looking at the film you can tell that that's where the fight was originally supposed to start in the earlier drafts before they decided to tack on the thing at the end to kill Zod instead of sending him to the Phantom Zone.

And while you weren't speaking directly about the neck snap, by having Superman send Zod to the Phantom Zone, you obviously lose that moment and I wouldn't sacrifice that.

As it was handled in the film we got, I absolutely would. I have nothing against the concept, and the scene itself was pretty good, but it's placement in the film and the overall execution of it was very poorly handled. It would only really be satisfying to me if they changed a lot of other stuff earlier in the film, namely having Superman's reservations about harming enemies be an actual recurring theme instead of having it come out of nowhere.

 

[EssayM]

Why do you "need" to have the neck snap? I mean, it's one thing to not mind Supes killing, but to actively want it?

 

[PacificBoy]

As it was handled in the film we got, I absolutely would. I have nothing against the concept, and the scene itself was pretty good, but it's placement in the film and the overall execution of it was very poorly handled. It would only really be satisfying to me if they changed a lot of other stuff earlier in the film, namely having Superman's reservations about harming enemies be an actual recurring theme instead of having it come out of nowhere.

That's it really. There wasn't a sense of any buildup to the emotional climax of killing Zod. And the denouement seems to reflect the original climax of all enemies getting sucked into the zone rather than the altered one.

Was Mark Waid's issue too, that the kill wasn't earned.

 

[The Question]

Why do you "need" to have the neck snap? I mean, it's one thing to not mind Supes killing, but to actively want it?

Well, I feel like if it had been executed a bit better, it could have been a really powerful moment that would have elevated the film. The movie ends in a bittersweet way. Superman saves the day, but to do so he's forced to go to a dark place and do a bad thing. You've got a hero who was victorious, but that victory did not come without sacrifice. You've got Superman's vow of pseudo-pacifism and reverence for life now reinforced by an element of guilt and shame. You could raise the notion in people's minds that an act can both be unquestionably and completely wrong and immoral and also be unavoidable and necessary. You can cement the notion that these are the kinds of ethical decisions that he has to make now that he's put on the cape. He can't just keep to himself and occasionally save people from fires anymore, he has to navigate the complexities of the world on a massive scale where the outcomes of his decisions mean life or death.

The killing of Zod, if handled well, could have been a pretty great and harrowing way of ending a film that both deconstructs and venerates Superman's classical boy scout morality in a very visceral and human way.

But it wasn't handled well so I say cut it.

 

[The Question]

Was Mark Waid's issue too, that the kill wasn't earned.

That's the thing. That's the magic word. Earned. Movies have to earn things. A movie has to earn the things it does, and the weirder or the bigger a deal it is the harder the film has to work to earn it. It can't just do them when it feels like without laying down the groundwork. Otherwise, it rings false. It doesn't resonate with a person's inherent need for meaningful narratives. It's just stuff happening on screen that doesn't immerse the audience.

 

[Krumm]

[It was] a really powerful moment that [...] elevated the film. The movie ends in a bittersweet way. Superman saves the day, but to do so he's forced to go to a dark place and do a bad thing. You've got a hero who was victorious, but that victory did not come without sacrifice. You've got Superman's vow of pseudo-pacifism and reverence for life now reinforced by an element of guilt and shame. You could raise the notion in people's minds that an act can both be unquestionably and completely wrong and immoral and also be unavoidable and necessary. You can cement the notion that these are the kinds of ethical decisions that he has to make now that he's put on the cape. He can't just keep to himself and occasionally save people from fires anymore, he has to navigate the complexities of the world on a massive scale where the outcomes of his decisions mean life or death.

The killing of Zod [is] a pretty great and harrowing way of ending a film that both deconstructs and venerates Superman's classical boy scout morality in a very visceral and human way.

That is a great way to describe how I felt about the ending.

 

[Loki882]

I still fail to see how the scene was "tacked on" and "contrived." The way they were fighting, it seemed perfectly logical to me, Zod could have just as easily gotten Superman in the headlock. When many people say it was "contrived" (not everyone, but some) they actually mean "I didn't like it." That is fine, but its not the same as being contrived.

 

[The Question]

I still fail to see how the scene was "tacked on" and "contrived." The way they were fighting, it seemed perfectly logical to me, Zod could have just as easily gotten Superman in the headlock. When many people say it was "contrived" (not everyone, but some) they actually mean "I didn't like it." That is fine, but its not the same as being contrived.

I don't know about everyone else, but when I refer to the ending as being tacked on, I'm not talking about Superman killing Zod. I'm talking about the entire fight scene.

 

[DorneyDave]

That's the thing. That's the magic word. Earned. Movies have to earn things. A movie has to earn the things it does, and the weirder or the bigger a deal it is the harder the film has to work to earn it. It can't just do them when it feels like without laying down the groundwork. Otherwise, it rings false. It doesn't resonate with a person's inherent need for meaningful narratives. It's just stuff happening on screen that doesn't immerse the audience.

I think it earned the ending. The theme in the movie about Clark now adopting Earth as his home planet and thus it's people. Zod telling him "that you can now watch them suffer" Clark seeing his own father die before his eyes and him being powerless. He wasn't going to be powerless again. So he made a rash decision. I felt the movie definitely "earned" the kill.

I also really hope they touch on it heavily in the next one, with Batman even questioning Clark.

 

[EssayM]

Well, I feel like if it had been executed a bit better, it could have been a really powerful moment that would have elevated the film. The movie ends in a bittersweet way. Superman saves the day, but to do so he's forced to go to a dark place and do a bad thing. You've got a hero who was victorious, but that victory did not come without sacrifice. You've got Superman's vow of pseudo-pacifism and reverence for life now reinforced by an element of guilt and shame. You could raise the notion in people's minds that an act can both be unquestionably and completely wrong and immoral and also be unavoidable and necessary. You can cement the notion that these are the kinds of ethical decisions that he has to make now that he's put on the cape. He can't just keep to himself and occasionally save people from fires anymore, he has to navigate the complexities of the world on a massive scale where the outcomes of his decisions mean life or death.

The killing of Zod, if handled well, could have been a pretty great and harrowing way of ending a film that both deconstructs and venerates Superman's classical boy scout morality in a very visceral and human way.

But it wasn't handled well so I say cut it.

Yeah, but even handled well, it kind of makes for a depressing ending for a Superman movie. I would much rather have the more triumphant ending of him simply defeating Zod.

 

[Loki882]

The ending fight scene was tacked on how exactly? It was a logical conclusion to what had been building up for the last forty minutes.

 

[DorneyDave]

Yeah, but even handled well, it kind of makes for a depressing ending for a Superman movie. I would much rather have the more triumphant ending of him simply defeating Zod.

I thought the end was still triumphant enough, especially with the last few scenes in the Daily Planet.

Him just defeating Zod would have been fine, but I felt the kill added a lot and was a very interesting, and a right choice.

 

[The Question]

The ending fight scene was tacked on how exactly? It was a logical conclusion to what had been building up for the last forty minutes.

Because they executed a plan to send the Kryptonians back to the Phantom Zone, and then they had Zod stick around to punch Superman for five more minutes anyway. The plot didn't call for it, and they in fact had to tailor the plot to allow for it. It was tacked on at the end.

In what way was it the logical conclusion to the events of the film?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I understand what people mean when they say that he didn't 'earn' the kill.

The trouble for me is that I think the circumstances really neccesary for me to feel the kill was earned, would make the movie even more depressing and violent than it already was. I would have needed to really see Zod going after more people, see death actually happening... TBH maybe even see Supes fail to save someone... That's the kind of situation it would take for me to believe Superman would decide there was no longer any other choice.

And I know people won't like that.

But then, that's why I didn't want Superman killing at all in this film.

 

[DorneyDave]

In what way was it the logical conclusion to the events of the film?

"My son will finished what we started"

"My son is twice the man you are"

It was all building to a showdown between Zod and Superman. If we didn't get that, it would have felt incomplete.

 

[The Question]

I understand what people mean when they say that he didn't 'earn' the kill.

The trouble for me is that I think the circumstances really neccesary for me to feel the kill was earned, would make the movie even more depressing and violent than it already was. I would have needed to really see Zod going after more people, see death actually happening... TBH maybe even see Supes fail to save someone... That's the kind of situation it would take for me to believe Superman would decide there was no longer any other choice.

And I know people won't like that.

But then, that's why I didn't want Superman killing at all in this film.

I can't speak for everyone else, but when I say the movie didn't earn the kill, that's not what I mean.

The movie didn't earn the kill because the movie didn't establish that Superman killing the bad guy at the end is some kind of big deal. Yeah, we as fans know that Superman in most versions has a very strict no-kill rule. But the average movie goer doesn't have that burned into their brain like we do, and they're used to the hero in an action movie killing the bad guy and it not being a big deal. And even for a fan like me, just because it's been burned into my brain from the source material doesn't mean the movie doesn't have to lay that groundwork for me to enjoy the film, because while I already have that information, the movie skipping that groundwork and just relying on my prior knowledge to get what it's talking about reveals the artifice of the whole thing, and it takes me out of the movie.

 

[The Question]

"My son will finished what we started"

"My son is twice the man you are"

It was all building to a showdown between Zod and Superman. If we didn't get that, it would have felt incomplete.

The showdown between Zod and Superman could have been Superman and Zod fighting in the ship as Zod tries to shoot down the plane and it could have ended about a minute later when Superman throws Zod into the event horizon to get sucked into the Phantom Zone with the others.

 

[Marvin]

Yeah, but we know it's his sacred oath. But the film didn't establish that, you're right. I'm not sure that's a free ticket though. The whole point of it was built around us knowing Superman doesn't kill.

"We" don't know anything the film doesn't tell us. Pre conceived ideas of what is what aren't conducive to judging whether a film is successful or not. They are however somewhat conducive to deciding whether a film is personally satisfying or not.

It's an interesting idea that you suggest it's his sacred oath. I get that in begins when bruce tosses the gun into the water and give's Ra's the big eff you in the academy. This story is seemingly about a different path.
Perhaps a oath derived from being put into an ugly yet character defying situation. You say we know superman is about that oath, the film says it's time to breakdown how we get to that character in a new and perhaps more relatable way.

I don't know. It felt like there was so much 'reinvention of Superman' which I guess I don't feel is really necessary. I think alot of the mixed response is because of this too. We've seen so many superhero films done right now. We can all envision doing Superman right without having to redefine his character or stories.

This property and it's audience has had a shaky relationship. There is a 60 year cinematic history of the character being a certain way. To put that same thing on screen today would make a lot of people happy, at the same time it would make alot of people roll their eyes(as they did in 2005).

Perhaps it's time for the other half of the audience to be given something.

That being said I still think this incarnation outdoes what has come before in many key ways. Such as a superman that saves people before he meets Jor or one that doesn't jump at the chance to quit, one that feels agony in taking life(with no choice). I also like that he doesn't lie to the people he considers his close friends...etc.

I also am looking forward to people blaming him for Zod. Something that was surely lacking in the last ones.

 

[Marvin]

The showdown between Zod and Superman could have been Superman and Zod fighting in the ship as Zod tries to shoot down the plane and it could have ended about a minute later when Superman throws Zod into the event horizon to get sucked into the Phantom Zone with the others.

Is this better?
We can only speak for ourselves.