List misconceptions about particular CBMs

[The Batman]

There are often fan interpretations of certain moments, characters, etc. in CBM that often don't line up with what the movie is actually conveying. List some examples here.

 

[The Batman]

Bruce and Rachel's relationship in TDK. I think their dynamic is often misinterpreted. People act like Rachel is completely over Bruce when TDK starts, as if the movie doesn't establish that she doesn't answer Harvey's marriage proposal due to still having feelings for Bruce.

And then, you have people who paint Bruce as being more fixated on Rachel than he actually is. When Alfred tells him the truth in TDKR, he ends up sleeping with another woman a day or so later, and Rachel's never brought up again. I get the impression if Rachel had lived and Bruce read the letter when he was supposed to, it wouldn't have been hard for him to move on.

 

[Filmfreak]

And on that subject, the most common misconception about Rachel has to be that Bruce gave up on Batman and became a recluse because of her death, while it's clearly stated in The Dark Knight Rises that the streets were cleaned up good and he wasn't needed anymore. Therefore, he had no purpose in life.

 

[The Batman]

Yup. Bruce developing the reactor was his way of trying to help people without having to be Batman. When he realized the reactor was dangerous, that's when he became a recluse who had nothing to live for.

The only thing Rachel's death did was affect Bruce's love life, and that's mainly because he thought she died still wanting to be with him.

 

[metaphysician]

I have a *ton* of possible snarky answers ( hint: most would anger the Snyder fans ), but a slightly more serious one- the misattribution of villainy. Far too many people, when asked who the "main villain" of the movie the Incredible Hulk, will answer "Blonsky/the Abomination", and that just plain isn't so. General Ross is the character whose decisions and motivations create the antagonism in the movie, and define the challenges that Bruce Banner has to overcome. Blonsky serves *that*, rather than acting as an independent agent; thematically speaking, Blonsky/the Abomination is Ross' "Hulk", a monster he accidentally created that he doesn't truly control.

Same thing applies with a number of other movies, like Winter Soldier or, to an extent, Batman v Superman. The common thread is "Whoever the hero gets into a fist fight with last is the villain".

 

[The Batman]

There are modern CBM fans, especially Snyder fanboys, who seem to think that Donner Superman was always this perfect boy scout that just breezes through everything.

Donner Superman is a guy who often chose his more human impulses over his alien side. This is what led to him going back in time to save Lois. It's also what causes him to give up his powers in Superman 2.

Unlike some of the Live Action Supermen that came after him, he and his Lois don't get some happily ever after.

He has to outsmart his super powered foes because he can't beat them in a physical battle.

And of course, there's the whole truck driver subplot in Superman 2, which culminates in Superman indulging in some personal revenge.

 

[Bayne]

I've seen a lot of people who severely look down on Civil War as a classic case of having a villain 'who can manipulate everything to be exactly how they need it to be no matter how unbelievable the situation is'.

The truth is if you really look at Zemo's plan, most of the movie's major coincidences aren't *necessary* for his plan to succeed at all. They just happen (because they make for a good movie). He succeeds at slandering the Avengers' name the second Cap (and others) go rogue, which did not require a ton of manipulation. He succeeds at killing the extra Winter Soldiers through simple torture and murder, mostly off camera with no manipulation involved at all. And his (temporary) success at driving the Avengers apart is often interpreted as only possible because of Zemo's 'master plan' to get Tony, Bucky and Cap together in a specific room in Russia. This, according to some, means the movie is ridiculous because 'what if Cap was arrested and only Bucky and Tony arrived? Or what if Tony didn't show up at all?' Etc.

But the reality of the ending is that Zemo very much likes the idea of getting to lecture Tony and Cap in person about Bucky's history, but he's already proven himself willing to just put evidence out on the internet (when he deliberately called a hotel maid into the room where the real psychologist's body was hidden), which would produce the exact same results in terms of driving the avengers apart. Zemo just wouldn't get to gloat over it all before he died. Meanwhile, in the alternate universe where Cap didn't get to Russia, Zemo actually did even better than he does in the movie as written. Tony unquestionably would've killed Bucky in those circumstances and the relationship between Cap and Tony would've been even worse off as a result.

Pretty much all of the specific manipulation after 'frame Bucky' was optional. A great bonus for Zemo to shoot for if he could get it.

 

[Herofan]

And of course, there's the whole truck driver subplot in Superman 2, which culminates in Superman indulging in some personal revenge.

Which most of the (particularly anti-Snyder) purists are still aghast over.

 

[chamber-music]

There seems to be a popular misconception that Batman kills Ra's Al Ghul in Begins.

Ra's destroys the controls on the train with his broken sword to prevent Batman from stopping him.

Batman choosing not to attempt to save his life again doesn't make him a murderer either. Not attempting to risk your own life to save a arsonist who gets trapped in a building by a fire they started doesn't make you the arsonist's killer.

And of course, there's the whole truck driver subplot in Superman 2, which culminates in Superman indulging in some personal revenge.

Yep. Some people were salty about Clark in Man of Steel wrecking that creep bully's truck but it was no worst to me than Donner's Superman getting revenge in the dinner.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

There seems to be a popular misconception that Batman kills Ra's Al Ghul in Begins.

Ra's destroys the controls on the train with his broken sword to prevent Batman from stopping him.

Batman choosing not to attempt to save his life again doesn't make him a murderer either. Not attempting to risk your own life to save a arsonist who gets trapped in a building be a fire they started doesn't make you the arsonists killer.

That's an odd misconception since Batman even says out loud what he's doing, so that should be quite clear. The criticism I've heard about it is that Batman is nit-picking his own moral philosophy as it's not something anyone has forced him to follow, it's his own deep belief that he must stop the villains without killing. I get why some can see it as his action results in unnecessary death.

Yep. Some people were salty about Clark in Man of Steel wrecking that creep bully's truck but it was no worst to me than Donner's Superman getting revenge in the dinner.

I've had issues with that, but not with that he's getting revenge. The problem is how he chose to do it as it would have been so much easier to just do something like knocking the guy out, or something else a human would do. That he destroys the guy's truck in a very supernatural way is a great way to risk exposure (both because it was out in the open so someone could see him, and there should be quite some investigation around an event like that) and since his father gave his own life for his secret it feels very disrespectful to his father's memory and sacrifice to handle the secret so haphazardly.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Yeah I don’t feel bad for the trucker in MoS (dude was a sexual assaulter and a total POS) but how Clark was able to do THAT much damage to the guy’s truck without anyone hearing or seeing it really sucks the reality out of the situation. That scene and the infamous Pa Kent death scene really reveal how shortsighted Goyer and Snyder were about Superman’s abilities. Like, in their minds, there was NO WAY he could have resolved either situation without revealing to the world that he’s a superhuman (only in the case of the trucker, he definitely did).

 

[henzINNIT]

It also frames Clark in a less than positive light. Him refusing to engage the trucker is supposed to show that he took the high road, not to use his enormous power to end a petty fight. Or I would assume so at least. The reveal that he actually did get his own back, just later after time to settle, and took it out on the guy's truck behind his back, is just... why?

 

[Lily Adler]

That's an odd misconception since Batman even says out loud what he's doing, so that should be quite clear. The criticism I've heard about it is that Batman is nit-picking his own moral philosophy as it's not something anyone has forced him to follow, it's his own deep belief that he must stop the villains without killing. I get why some can see it as his action results in unnecessary death.



I've had issues with that, but not with that he's getting revenge. The problem is how he chose to do it as it would have been so much easier to just do something like knocking the guy out, or something else a human would do. That he destroys the guy's truck in a very supernatural way is a great way to risk exposure (both because it was out in the open so someone could see him, and there should be quite some investigation around an event like that) and since his father gave his own life for his secret it feels very disrespectful to his father's memory and sacrifice to handle the secret so haphazardly.

Ah takes me back to the Nolan board debates about it. Good times...

 

[Deck Rickard]

I’m not sure if this is a misconception or not but I’ve always assumed in Batman Forever that Batman was just sitting in the courtroom in full costume when Harvey was interviewing Maroni.

 

[Arishem]

I’m not sure if this is a misconception or not but I’ve always assumed in Batman Forever that Batman was just sitting in the courtroom in full costume when Harvey was interviewing Maroni.

Me too.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Me too.

I think there actually is some merit to the argument, and not only because Schumacher’s films were campy as all hell. I believe in the comics at the time, it was canon that Batman was also supposed to testify in court that day in full costume.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I’m not sure if this is a misconception or not but I’ve always assumed in Batman Forever that Batman was just sitting in the courtroom in full costume when Harvey was interviewing Maroni.

I think the term 'Questioning' is the more accurate word here.
And yeah, they took that bit from the comic and did put Kilmer (or a stunt double) in full suit for that blink and you'll miss it scene.

@Arishem Here's John Favreau in that movie, the lean guy standing in the right of that picture.

 

[Arishem]

@Arishem Here's Jon Favreau in that movie, the lean guy standing in the right of that picture.

Thanks! Never noticed him before.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Thanks! Never noticed him before.

I had to browse the web a few times to find his exact spot in this movie.

 

[Arishem]

I had to browse the web a few times to find his exact spot in this movie.

Thanks for all the hard work.

 

[Drizzle]

I think there actually is some merit to the argument, and not only because Schumacher’s films were campy as all hell. I believe in the comics at the time, it was canon that Batman was also supposed to testify in court that day in full costume.

Speaking of superheroes testifying in court, wasn't that the whole reason why Lex Luthor was released from prison in Superman Returns? Because Superman didn't show up at the court hearing? You'd think they'd have more to go on than just his testimony.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Speaking of superheroes testifying in court, wasn't the whole reason why Lex Luthor was released from prison in Superman Returns? Because Superman didn't show up at the court hearing? You'd think they'd have more to go on than just his testimony.

Haha yeah you’re right! God that movie sucked.

 

[Lily Adler]

Speaking of superheroes testifying in court, wasn't that the whole reason why Lex Luthor was released from prison in Superman Returns? Because Superman didn't show up at the court hearing? You'd think they'd have more to go on than just his testimony.

And then BvS had Superman testify in front of a congressional committee.

 

[Drizzle]

And then BvS had Superman testify in front of a congressional committee.

Ah yes, where he stood by and did nothing as Congress blew up around him.

 

[Lily Adler]

Ah yes, where he stood by and did nothing as Congress blew up around him.

Again why did they have to create a new event for the government to be suspicious of Superman when Metropolis is right there.