BvS The BvS Ultimate Cut Thread - Part 2

[Jaxon]

Nice

 

[misslane38]

The problems with having character development happen in dreams is because it turns an active character into a passive. We jump over the part where a character actually makes choices, fails and in that finds the urge and abillity to change. Instead we just see a character dream, and after the dream the character is a changed person.

That would be fair criticism only if there were no other scenes in the film that provided active character development, or if the dreams themselves did not reveal things about character that we didn't get anywhere else. The dreams merely serve as a visual representation of the internal life of Bruce's character: we see the memories, conflicts, and fears that drive him. We are not seeing images that cause Bruce to change; we're seeing images of how Bruce has changed and is changing.

But that's the point, I don't know. I have watched two movies with this character and I don't know who he is underneath the basic characterization. He doesn't feel like a true person with different dimensions to him. He feels one note and like he's doing what he's doing not because it's his character, but because it's just what the script wants him to do. He just feels like a chess piece by the writer.

Do you not know because these films have not given you enough information or do you not know because you refuse to actually seek out the answers to your questions? Because all of the answers are there. Basic characterization? Man of Steel reveals Clark to be a quiet and lonely child who fears his own powers and is constantly trying to hide his true self. Despite being constantly bullied, he still will risk revealing himself to save his classmates when his school bus careens off a bridge. Clark is a young man who pushes back against his father's fears and grows to be a man who is curious about his origins. We see Clark as an adult who saves women from abuse and saves men who have bullied him. He cannot not act if he can make a difference. He's also a bit of a jokester.

Clark's primary personality trait is his introversion -- a personality type that makes sense given that he's been raised to hide himself and conceal the full scope of his gifts. Nevertheless, when a man harrasses a young woman in a bar and attacks him for his efforts to defend her, he leaves the jerk with his truck in an impossible position. Clark is a man who respects his father but resents his father's cynicism about the world. He loves his mother and seems truly calm and at peace with her. Discovering the truth about himself in the scout ship, puts a smile on Clark's face. Just hearing his birth name brings him joy. As he test the limits of his powers, even the stumbles excite him and lead to exclamations of blissful freedom. The freedom to be himself is liberating.

When Clark decides to reveal himself to the world to deal with Zod's threat, he introduces himself to the military with calm confidence. Learning who he is, mastering his powers, and putting on the armor of his Kryptonian family's house has given Clark new maturity and confidence. He even manages to find a way to flirt with Lois while answering her questions in front of General Swanwick. Clark knows he has to earn people's trust, but he's also not going to let the military intimidate him. Clark willingly and without fear gives himself up to Zod. He's grateful to Lois whose faith in him made him believe that the world could be ready embrace someone like him.

On Zod's ship, Clark is probed for information about the codex Zod needs to rebirth Krypton on Earth. In Clark's mind, we see Zod offering Clark a future as part of a New Krypton that costs the lives of all humanity. We see Clark as himself -- a Kansas farmer with his Kansas Royals shirt -- lost in a world of death. Clark is torn between giving life to his dead species or dooming his adoptive planet. Clark, obviously, chooses Earth. When he returns to Earth, Clark battles Zod in Smallville. He fiercely protects his mother and also saves the lives of the military men who viewed him with distrust earlier. He earns their respect.

Clark heads off to the Indian Ocean to destroy the World Engine that Zod is using to terraform the planet. He gives this fight everything he can give, and his efforts are beautifully juxtaposed with scenes like Jenny, Perry, and Steve struggling in Metropolis. When he succeeds, they survive. To ensure the Kryptonians are finally sent away, Clark heads back to Metropolis to check on Lois, Dr. Hamilton, and Colonel Hardy. They succeed in creating the singularity that returns the Kryptonians, except Zod, back to the Phantom Zone. Clark is there to catch Lois when she falls, and they cement their relationship with a kiss. Clark is obviously attracted to a woman who did not fear him, believed in him, defended him, risked her life for him, and was a partner in his mission.

Unfortunately, the battle isn't over. Clark must deal with Zod, and when given the choice between protecting an innocent family and killing the last remaining link to his Kryptonian heritage, Clark chooses to let Zod and Krypton die. Killing Zod tears Clark apart, and he is comfortable being vulnerable and seeking support from Lois. Now that Clark knows who he is, and the world knows who he is, he can finally stop being a ghost. He can have a real life that balances his humanity as Clark and his Kryptonian abilities as Superman. Clark chooses to be a journalist. He has amazing talents, and he could just always be Superman, yet he chooses to live part of his life as an entry level reporter.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice gives us a Clark who cares about social justice. He'd rather investigate a vigilante unfairly punishing the poor than write pabulum for the sports page. He's still quiet, but he is willing to stand up to his editor, Perry White. As Superman, Clark begins confidently. He deals with the conflict in Nairomi with strength and clarity; he's perhaps too confident. When he comes home, he is prescient enough to know that Lois may be stressed, so he brings flowers and plans to cook for her. He's calm, sweet, and reassuring. Clark's fun side also shines through when he jumps into the bathtub with his girlfriend.

Throughout the film, Clark is slowly barraged with more and more skepticism, cynicism, and judgement for his actions as Superman. He initially decides to handle this by speaking to the Nairomi woman whose criticism before Senator Finch's committee was a scary indictment of Superman. When he fails to connect with her, Clark chooses to take on Batman. When the heat of criticism reaches a fever pitch, Clark voluntarily attends the hearing in Washington, D.C. He's gutted when he cannot prevent a bomb from destroying the Capitol and the lives of the people in it.

Clark seeks comfort from Lois and his mother. He wonders what his dad would think: What would he do or say? He reaches a point of despair and retreats to solitude to find answers. What he finds his the voice and wisdom of his father, and it gives him the strength to keep going. He returns to Metropolis, saves Lois, and confronts Lex. Lex goads Superman but cannot get him to lose his cool. Even with his mother's life at stake, Superman attempts to ask Batman for help. He is willing to forge a temporary alliance not only because an innocent life is at stake but also because he now knows Luthor has been orchestrating everything.

The idea that he may have to take Batman's life is devastating for Clark. He cannot believe or accept that sometimes there is no way to find light in dark situations. He reaches out to Batman in the hopes that maybe they can work together. And, even when Batman begins to attack, Superman refuses to fully engage because he still believes that he will stand down. When he's at the point of death, Superman is thinking only of his mother, and it is what saves him. Clark's last breaths were used to appeal one last time to Bruce's humanity, and it works. Batman and Superman resolve to fight together to save Martha, Metropolis, and the world.

Superman confronts Lex in the scout ship. After everything Lex put him through, Superman does not hurt him and even saves him from his abomination's fists. He battles Doomsday with all his strength and is willing to risk everything to save his world. Superman dies for his world. He was on the brink of believing the world wasn't ready for him and only corrupts good things, but Batman showed him that there's still hope left. Superman also found his world in Lois.

All of this summary boils down to is a Superman who has evolved from an introvert who was bullied but always found a way to make a positive difference in the world as a Good Samaritan to an active superhero who has made connections and stood up for his roles both in his heroic and personal lives. He began with a conflicted bicultural identity and was eventually able to integrate both sides of himself: Kryptonian and human. Clark is a sweet and thoughtful young man who loves deeply. He's a passionate defender of the poor and disenfranchised, but he's not above pranks to teach bullies lessons. Clark loves having fun with his girlfriend at home, and he doesn't mind cooking for her. He's not a showboat at work, but he will stand up to his boss when he believes it matters. Clark cares about what people think about him, but he will continue to sacrifice and defend people regardless if they are innocent or evil.

I'm not sure what dimensions are missing for you. What would save Clark from being a chess piece? Because I can't say that I would find it difficult to answer any questions about the kind of man Clark Kent has been characterized as in the DCEU. What aspects of his character trouble you the most with their opaqueness?

Lex wanted to show the people that Superman was a false God. But why? Because he realized, when he was a boy and his father beat him, that God can't be all powerful and all good at the same time? Lex says that the people needs to see what a fraud Superman is, but I don't know why Lex even cares or why he's willing to kill innocent people to get what he wants.

First, it's because he's clearly been damaged by a terrible combination of authoritarian parenting paired with power and knowledge. Second, he's a sociopath who only cares about himself. He's uncomfortable living in a world he no longer understands or has the means to control. The existence of beings greater than himself generates fear and insecurity. Lex is in control not because people love him or believe in him, he's in control because he's smart and has money. Superman is a threat to everything that makes Lex feel secure in the world, and he's willing to do anything in order to restore order.

But if it adds to his suspicion of Superman, then Bruce is a moron. So he sees a person he has never met, and he doesn't know if said character is good or a mass murderer intending to take over the world, and he hears this character warn him about someone that he doesn't even name, so Bruce doesn't even know who this mysterious character, who could be a psychopath, is talking about ... and that adds to Bruce's suspicion of Superman? How does that make the slightest sense? It was a pointless scene that only was there to tease another movie.

If you recall, at this point, Bruce is already at a tipping point with regards to Superman. The Knightmare scene already demonstrates how Bruce's own psyche has created a Superman that needs to be stopped by any means necessary. Nonetheless, the warning from the mysterious stranger in the other vision, is a way of underscoring the conclusions Bruce has already drawn. As Flash says, "You were right about him." The most important aspect of the scene is to hint at the broader threat to come, particularly the need to gather together other heroes to fight it.

How does Superman appear careless and self-absorbed just because he didn't notice a bomb? And considering Superman has saved plenty of people, it doesn't make sense that he wouldn't do anything if he knew that there was a bomb there. For being a detective, Batman sure sucked at figuring stuff out.

When people begin to look to a savior figure to save them, then any failure of that savior figure is going to be scary. It suggests that he's not all powerful; he can make mistakes. And if someone with that much power is imperfect, then must there be a Superman? When an ordinary person fails, the consequences are hardly ever severe. If Superman fails, however, his failures are supersized. Even if Superman didn't make the bomb or did his best to save as many lives as he could, the fact that Superman's existence can bring alien armies to Earth and drive men to become suicide bombers, is not a status quo that Batman is content with maintaining.

When was Batman about to kill a woman? He was about to kill Superman, not Lois. And that's one way to read the scene. Because of what a huge focus the name "Martha" had in the scene, I read it more like Batman saw himself in Superman because their mothers shared the same name. Which I find ridiculous.

It's both. Batman sees himself as Superman because they both care about their mothers, but he also sees himself in the same position as the man who killed his parents. He was about to do to Clark and Lois what was done to Thomas and Martha. Batman and Superman have both had mothers named Martha since their very early days as comic book characters. You may find it ridiculous, but I loved how the film used a decades-old parallel to juxtapose these two men and their humanity. I find the idea that something so intimate and so human cut through the adrenaline, fear, and rage to be profoundly moving.

Martha wasn't gagged. And Superman didn't try and find her after he found out she was taken.

In the photos Lex showed Superman, his mother was gagged. In later shots of Martha, we see that she is clearly not crying out to her son. Superman did not try to find his mother after she was taken because Lex was explicit that if he was seen even flying towards her location, Martha would be killed instantly. Superman needed Batman to save Martha because he wasn't expected to save Martha.

But Doomsday hadn't been activated. He became activated when the countdown was over and all that electricity, for lack of a better word, activated him. If Superman right away would've had destroyed the ship, would've Doomsday even have been activated?

I honestly have no idea. But I also don't know if it would have been wise to destroy the ship either. I'm pretty sure Superman couldn't destroy a piece of technology like that in the midst of creating a deformity without causing unintended negative consequences. For all we know, destroying the ship in the middle of the activation process could have transferred its power to random areas throughout the city. A city full of Doomsdays, part Doomsdays, or other monstrous hybrids could have been created along with other forms of destruction relating to the energy drain.

But she wasn't needed for this movie. That she had lost hope and regained it just felt hollow and unearned. And why did she have to be there to develop the "metahuman thesis"? Because of Justice League? Wonder Woman was unnecessary and took the focus away from developing the conflict between Superman and Batman, a conflict that really needed some more logic.

Wonder Woman very much was needed for this movie. She is a living example of what comes next after the central conflict between Batman and Superman is resolved. As a hero who abandoned humanity because she believed heroes could no longer join together to prevent horrors, her emergence at the end of the film after hints of her peripheral involvement suggest a paradigm shift for her and heroes like her. Rather than pull focus from Batman and Superman, Wonder Woman serves a foil for both characters.

The conflict between Batman and Superman is logical and simple. Batman is deep into his vigilante career at the point we meet him. He's lost friends, and he feels like a failure. When he first saw Superman, it was from a pile of rubble from his own company in Metropolis. Batman sees Superman as likely to follow the same path as himself: someone who starts off trying to do good and whose attempts to make a difference only make things worse. Batman is fed up with half-measures that only maintain a status quo. With no children, no end to crime in Gotham, Bruce wants a legacy. Even though Superman is a force for good, he is dangerous.

Superman sees Batman as a hero who gives other heroes a bad name. He's been corrupted by his own power, and he is starting to hurt more than he helps. Superman does not see justice when he examines Batman's efforts to save Gotham. In short, while the public is preoccupied with attacking Superman, Clark sees Batman as a man who is legitimately stepping over a line. His goal is ultimately just to get Batman to retire before things get worse. Batman's refusal to even listen to Superman's request for help is the catalyst for Superman to engage in active conflict.

In short, Batman wants to hunt Superman because he believes he is corruptible and being corrupted. Superman wants to encourage Batman to retire because he believes he has already been corrupted. Both want to prevent innocent people and even bad people from being unjustly harmed. They believe they are doing what is best for the world.

Well, that's not true. In my original critique I both addressed that there was many things that didn't make any sense, and the lack of depth and substance. That I didn't find any depth and substance to a protagonist and his antagonist and to their conflict, is quite troublesome for me when I watch a movie.

Nothing you have yet posted has come close to offering any substantial rationale for your assessment of the film and its characters. You cite criticisms and offer few examples or illustration to develop your points. What you have proven to me is that you did not like the film, and that's fine. You don't have to like this movie. What I don't appreciate are lists of petty complaints and nitpicky criticisms that are presented as facts.

 

[dhandler01]

I don't get why people are confused about Doomsday. It was a fallback plan. Should his manipulation fail, he'd just kill Superman outright. Whether or not he could control it is irrelevant. At the end of the day, Superman would be dead and he'd have proven that, at the very least, this Kryptonian god-figure was an evil force. Look at the monster his world concocted. Look how he was useless in stopping it. Whether everyone lived or died wouldn't matter because, in his mind, he'd have proven the larger point that he harped on all movie.

Also not sure how the notes were unnecessary. It's important to note that the Senate bombing was as much for Superman as it was for June as it was for Bruce. He needed the world to hate Superman. He needed the Senator out of his way. And he needed Bruce to see that as long as Superman was alive, no one would be safe.

You have to understand that all this stuff Bruce felt was just theorizing based on an almost 2 year old event. "If there's even a 1% chance." and "Count the dead...What's next?" All that thinking was about what might happen later. The notes were a reminder of what's happening now. Right now, a guy that worked for him and a victim of the Zod battle bombed a Senate hearing. Why? This guy had a life and had money coming in. Oh wait, no he didn't. Turns out he's completely broken and feels Bruce failed to save him. Bruce has to avenge him. It was a real time microcosm for Bruce's overall fear and paranoia of the future.

And goodness gracious, the Martha moment simply humanized Superman in that moment. In his dying breath, Superman's only wish was for the man that was going to kill him to save his mother. And Lois is there, further showing that Superman is in fact a man and he has people in his life that he cares about. People that know him as a person and that care about him too. Batman was going to take all of that way. He was going to kill a guy just trying to do right by the people he loves. Batman had nearly become Joe Chill. That was the point. The name thing was just a trigger for all that.

 

[flickchick85]

I just watched this. Not gonna do an in-depth review as I'm just kind of sick of hearing about this movie from both camps, so I'll just say I still have problems with writing/characterization choices, the title fight still seems contrived as hell, BUT the film is no longer an incoherent mess with those extra 30-minutes, so I'd definitely consider it an improvement.

 

[The Joker]

Lex's motives are muddled and his overall plan made no sense even in the UC.

It basically all came down to "reasons" for me. All this God complex and wanting to expose Superman because (?) was all just stupid. Especially him planning it for a year or so to make Batman fight Superman and kidnapping Ma Kent to make Superman fight Batman. During their fight he's also creating DD. So if Batman sucessfully kills Superman, DD is unleashed then what?

Lex's role was not only incoherent, but unnecessary. Putting aside the lack of thought behind him wanting them to fight, Batman already had Superman in his crosshairs, they were going to fight anyway.Batman infiltrated the party for the kryptonite. His arc should have been separate from the fight. Lex is about power, respect,and being greater than god. Have him add fuel to the public distrust of superman--prove to the world that the world doesn't need him because people like himself are around.

Exactly.

I'm the one who liked and defended the Jesse Eisenberg casting of Lex while the majority hated it. Well I was wrong.

Well nobody can be right all the time. Just ask Jaxon

 

[AnneFan]

 

[Jekecy]

It basically all came down to "reasons" for me. All this God complex and wanting to expose Superman because (?) was all just stupid.

Surely you realize interpreting someone else's position as "stupid" does not invalidate their own personal truths or beliefs of that viewpoint?

I'm curious if you can pinpoint where exactly his motivations are not explicitly made clear, because several others (and I) in this forum alone managed to interpret it fine, even in the theatrical cut.

Moreover, the "god complex" has been a staple of the Lex character for decades on end. Did you hate it in the comics as well?

 

[Batsfan1]

Jesus,you didnt read a single line I said did you?

1.It was there because Flash went back in time to warn bruce about the future.
2.How the future scenario unfolds we have to see in JL,but that scenario was avoided by Flash going back in time and warning bruce.
3.Lois will be the key to something regarding JL.Something related to bringing Superman back maybe?
4.Batman doesnt have powers.When Flash deals with timetravels and speedforce,the memories of that timeline collapse into the memories of hte present one.We see something similar in Flashpoint.He was not dreaming.I repeat,he was not dreaming.
5.Superman will probably not turn evil because that undermines the character development they did in the last 2 movies.Snyder and Cavill said Superman will be more in line with the comicbook incarnation in JL.


Please read what I said carefully.If you dont wanna take my word for it,take someone's who worked on the film : https://audioboom.com/boos/4366479-...-artist-animation-director-jay-oliva-spoilers

And please dont put words in my mouth again.I never said it was a dream or that Batman has superpowers.

Did you read what I said? I didn't say that you said that Batman had powers. I came to the conclusion that the only way that Batman could see the future was if he had powers. I still think that, because I don't remember Batman getting the knowledge of the future because the Flash time traveled in FP, but I only read that once. Not that I should have had to read it at all.
1. That's why it was put in. But what's the point of it, if it warns of a future that's been prevented?
2. If it was avoided then we won't see it, making it have no point.
3. You said that the future was avoided. Then it won't happen. But does that mean Superman came back in the previous timeline with Lois's help, then why would she be the key here? Wouldn't that be the thing Flash from a future with evil Superman would want to avoid?
4. The future scene may have not been, but the Flash one was based on what the movie gave.
5. I know. I said that. But this is still one that could, based on that now prevented future, which makes him not really Superman to me.
Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

 

[elgaz]

Watched the Ultimate Cut over the weekend there and was very impressed. I liked the original BvS release anyway (though I do recognise it has flaws), but I felt the UC gave us more backstory, filled in the cracks and made the scene transitions less jarring.

Most of the flaws with the original can be traced back the poor editing job done.

Is it the perfect BvS film we always wanted? Probably not, and never will be. But I think it is a good movie, and there's a hell of a lot of thematic work in there - parallels, analogies, philosophical questions and lots of little nods to myths and legends. I know there are those who are haters of this film, but I can't understand how anyone could write it off as a piece of s**t.

My brother watched it with me - he isn't a huge DC fan and thus never went to see the original in the cinema. He loved it.

 

[sf2]

Watched the Ultimate Cut over the weekend there and was very impressed. I liked the original BvS release anyway (though I do recognise it has flaws), but I felt the UC gave us more backstory, filled in the cracks and made the scene transitions less jarring.

Most of the flaws with the original can be traced back the poor editing job done.

Is it the perfect BvS film we always wanted? Probably not, and never will be. But I think it is a good movie, and there's a hell of a lot of thematic work in there - parallels, analogies, philosophical questions and lots of little nods to myths and legends. I know there are those who are haters of this film, but I can't understand how anyone could write it off as a piece of s**t.

My brother watched it with me - he isn't a huge DC fan and thus never went to see the original in the cinema. He loved it.

and it looks like an incredible amazing comic book! almost every scene!

 

[Blitzkrieg]

All the problems regarding editing and pacing of the movie was addressed in the UC,it's funny how a minute of additional footage here and there can make a movie much better,it was a generous improvement from the TC.

Those who had problems with the overall tone of the movie will still call it awful. I liked the TC anyway so it's obvious I'll love the UC even more.

 

[Whatupman]

Iron Man is a bit of an oddity when compared to the other super-heroes in movies. In a good way, obviously, they did wonders with him in the first movie, but he's an oddity nonetheless.

I would like to see what you're suggesting, but it's hard to do in a movie where you try to tackle big themes and complicated plotlines. TV is a better place to explore that. Besides, without comparing the quality of the two movies, you can make the exact same argument for Batman in all three of Nolan's movies, including The Dark Knight.

I do have some problems with Batman in the Nolan trilogy, but I defintitely got a better understanding of who Bruce Wayne is after Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, than I did of Superman after MoS and BvS. Bruce actually had a personality in Batman Begins.

Do you need a reason? A megalomaniac is a megalomaniac. Much like the previous point with Superman, it'd be nice to have some stronger backstory and we may yet get it in the future, but considering how much they had to put in this movie, his motivation is pretty clear. I don't really see how it's paper-thin, honestly; if it's a matter of relatability okay, fair enough, this is essentially the age-old "DC vs Marvel" debate. But Lex's motivation in this movie is consistent with the themes and the subtext and one relies on the other.

I definitely need a good reason to why the antagonist wants to kill the protagonist, otherwise it feels false, and I get taken out of the movie. His motivation just wasn't enough for me, sadly.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Bruce didn't know it was somebody else sending these notes back, he thought it was Wallace. In the last one (seen by Alfred in Bruce's wherever-the-hell-he-lives), the drawing is one of the Capitol in flames.

You're absolutely right. I thought that Bruce knew, just before the Capitol blew up, that Wallace had not gotten the disability checks, but actually he just thought that and another employe told him that Wallace had gotten them. That was a stupid mistake on my part, thanks for guiding me right. I do think it's weird that Bruce puts all the blame on Superman, when "Wallace" even put part of the blame on Bruce. If Bruce really felt quilty over what happened, then he should actually kill himself after he killed Superman. He's acting like a hypocrite. How many people hasn't died because of the creation of Batman? CoughRobincough.

He must've known someone gave birth to him at some point (presumably at least, for all he knows Kryptonians are bred in a tube-- ohhhh, bad example), but he didn't know he was someone's son, the same way he was Thomas and Martha's son.

But Batman actually says to Superman: "I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason." And this is while he's trying to kill Superman. So he already thought that Superman had parents who loved him.

The countdown for what? Superman didn't know what Lex was doing. Lex was in the middle of telling him what he was creating when Doomsday awoke. Superman taking action before Doomsday became fully alive would require a major leap in logic, which would create different narrative problems.

Superman didn't know what Lex was doing, but he must have known that it wasn't something good. What if it was a bomb that Lex was activating? Would Superman really just stand there and wait for it to be activated? You should never let the evil man continue with his plan, because it's probably something evil.

 

[NeoRanger]

I do have some problems with Batman in the Nolan trilogy, but I defintitely got a better understanding of who Bruce Wayne is after Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, than I did of Superman after MoS and BvS. Bruce actually had a personality in Batman Begins.

Eh, I don't see it personally. I couldn't tell you the first thing about Nolan's Bruce, outside the obvious (which is, be Batman).

But Batman actually says to Superman: "I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason." And this is while he's trying to kill Superman. So he already thought that Superman had parents who loved him.

You're not wrong to be confused. This line should've never been there; it was only added, because it's a reference to Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. It was supposed to be fanwank, but it does dilute the resolution of the fight and makes it confusing.

Superman didn't know what Lex was doing, but he must have known that it wasn't something good. What if it was a bomb that Lex was activating? Would Superman really just stand there and wait for it to be activated? You should never let the evil man continue with his plan, because it's probably something evil.

On the flipside, what if it was dead-man's switch Lex was activating and Superman intervening would've blown up Metropolis? "Look before you jump" is usually sound advice.

 

[AnneFan]

You're not wrong to be confused. This line should've never been there; it was only added, because it's a reference to Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. It was supposed to be fanwank, but it does dilute the resolution of the fight and makes it confusing.

From my perspective, the line works. Batman is an empty shell of a man. He doesn't really see meaning in anything. At that point, he only saw meaning in making life work for you, because for him, life is hard and effort is required to achieve what you want. He didn't believe in destiny or anything Devine. To him, that kind of talk would've been a lie and counterproductive.

 

[elgaz]

I definitely need a good reason to why the antagonist wants to kill the protagonist, otherwise it feels false, and I get taken out of the movie. His motivation just wasn't enough for me, sadly.

It took a few rewatches, but I eventually came round to totally understanding Batman's motives in this movie, flawed as they were.

As a child having his parents forcibly taken from him, he was surely left with feelings of powerlessness, anxiety, insecurity, and isolation. And as time passed, that grew into an ceaseless rage that (combined with his fortune and resources) led to him becoming Batman and waging a 20-year fight on criminality in Gotham. Being Batman is what allowed him to take back power, and control. To deliver justice as he saw fit. And to quote from BvS newspaper clippings, to become judge, and jury, and executioner.

When the events of MOS occurred, his perspective was given was a sideways blow. Criminals didn't matter any more; they were small fish in a big sea. There were other events going on in the world; apocalyptic events which were beyond the power of humanity to control, events being orchestrated by races of beings from far out in the universe with powers beyond comprehension.

And once again, Bruce was reduced to that small boy, powerless to stop things, losing his 'family' (in the Wayne building) and facing a growing insecurity about his place in the world. He had been returned to the one place he never, ever wanted to go again.

So he does what he's always done. His rage kicks in, and his brutality steps up a notch. Superman - be he good or bad, it doesn't matter - now represents all that Batman fears, and his paranoid and jaded psyche conjures up images of an Earth destroyed, with a maniacal Superman ruling over what's left. This is what ultimately drives Batman to deliver such a brutal beating to Superman, and to arrive at the point where is almost prepared to murder him.

As we know, he teeters back from the precipice at the last minute, clearing his mind of the fog which has enveloped it when he is startled by the utterance of a single word - 'Martha' - which means so much to both him and Superman. It is a word that reminds him why he became Batman in the first place, which was to fight injustice and to stop murders like this ever happening again, and makes him realise he has now become that which he has fought against for so long.

The motivation works for me, because two straight-thinking heroes would never resort to the type of brutal fight that Batman and Superman engaged in. There's no question that Batman in this film is not straight-thinking initially, and is presented almost as a villain, and that why's the fight occurs how it does. He's not a villain because he's is devoid of goodness, but because he has let his anger and rage take control of his sensibilities. His reasons for wanting Superman dead are driven by paranoia, and his actions in pursuing his goal are selfish and misguided. Ultimately though he comes to his senses, rejects what he has been trying to convince himself of, and redeems himself somewhat by saving Martha Kent. Bruce himself realises that he was the one in the wrong when he watches Clark's funeral and utters the words "I've failed him ........... in life."

It is a measure of Superman's capacity for forgiveness and understanding that despite being almost murdered by Batman, he immediately accepts his help in saving Martha and doesn't seem to harbour any resentment towards him from that point on. And not only that, but to give his life to save Earth despite the vitriol and blame throw at him from some quarters (Batman included) for the events which occurred in MOS, and at the start of BvS. This convinces Batman that there's still good in men; that they still have the capacity to do the right thing even when under immense pressure and having enough power to do anything they want to.

 

[Whatupman]

That would be fair criticism only if there were no other scenes in the film that provided active character development, or if the dreams themselves did not reveal things about character that we didn't get anywhere else. The dreams merely serve as a visual representation of the internal life of Bruce's character: we see the memories, conflicts, and fears that drive him. We are not seeing images that cause Bruce to change; we're seeing images of how Bruce has changed and is changing.

How do you know that the images in that sequence doesn't cause a change in Bruce? And how are we seeing images of how Bruce has changed, when he actually doesn't make any choices in the dream? He's passive, so how do we see that he is changing in the dream?

Do you not know because these films have not given you enough information or do you not know because you refuse to actually seek out the answers to your questions? Because all of the answers are there. Basic characterization? Man of Steel reveals Clark to be a quiet and lonely child who fears his own powers and is constantly trying to hide his true self. Despite being constantly bullied, he still will risk revealing himself to save his classmates when his school bus careens off a bridge. Clark is a young man who pushes back against his father's fears and grows to be a man who is curious about his origins. We see Clark as an adult who saves women from abuse and saves men who have bullied him. He cannot not act if he can make a difference. He's also a bit of a jokester.

All of that is quite basic, yes. There are some material there for some meaty stuff, but that is not what they go for. I never felt his struggle with his bullies, or that it was a hard choice for him to save his classmates. In which scene do we see him struggling with the decision to save his classmates? We don't see it. We see Jonathan question the choice afterwards, but we don't see Clark's struggle beforehand.

Clark's primary personality trait is his introversion -- a personality type that makes sense given that he's been raised to hide himself and conceal the full scope of his gifts. Nevertheless, when a man harrasses a young woman in a bar and attacks him for his efforts to defend her, he leaves the jerk with his truck in an impossible position. Clark is a man who respects his father but resents his father's cynicism about the world. He loves his mother and seems truly calm and at peace with her. Discovering the truth about himself in the scout ship, puts a smile on Clark's face. Just hearing his birth name brings him joy. As he test the limits of his powers, even the stumbles excite him and lead to exclamations of blissful freedom. The freedom to be himself is liberating.

But that scene in the bar is not a struggle. Clark could easily have stopped him without anyone knowing that he has any powers. That doesn't go against the wish to conceal the full scope of his gifts, so I don't know why you bring that up. I didn't see any scene where Clark resents his father's "cynicism". "As he test the limits of his powers, even the stumbles excite him and lead to exclamations of blissful freedom. The freedom to be himself is liberating." sounds nice and all, but that's not what I got out of that sequence. It feels like you're looking for something more meaningful that what they actually show in the movie.

When Clark decides to reveal himself to the world to deal with Zod's threat, he introduces himself to the military with calm confidence. Learning who he is, mastering his powers, and putting on the armor of his Kryptonian family's house has given Clark new maturity and confidence. He even manages to find a way to flirt with Lois while answering her questions in front of General Swanwick. Clark knows he has to earn people's trust, but he's also not going to let the military intimidate him. Clark willingly and without fear gives himself up to Zod. He's grateful to Lois whose faith in him made him believe that the world could be ready embrace someone like him.

Well, that was easy character development. It only took one sequence. Not really complex or meaningful, is it? And if he gives himself up to Zod without fear, then it isn't a struggle, is it? Because he has nothing to fear.

On Zod's ship, Clark is probed for information about the codex Zod needs to rebirth Krypton on Earth. In Clark's mind, we see Zod offering Clark a future as part of a New Krypton that costs the lives of all humanity. We see Clark as himself -- a Kansas farmer with his Kansas Royals shirt -- lost in a world of death. Clark is torn between giving life to his dead species or dooming his adoptive planet. Clark, obviously, chooses Earth. When he returns to Earth, Clark battles Zod in Smallville. He fiercely protects his mother and also saves the lives of the military men who viewed him with distrust earlier. He earns their respect.

I didn't feel like Clark was torn between those choices. And you said it yourself, "Clark obviously chooses Earth". If he obviously chooses Earth, then how was it a struggle? If there's no struggle, then we never see Clark's true character.

Clark is there to catch Lois when she falls, and they cement their relationship with a kiss. Clark is obviously attracted to a woman who did not fear him, believed in him, defended him, risked her life for him, and was a partner in his mission.

That kiss came out of nowhere, but of course the big blockbuster needs a love story, even if it hardly gets any development.

Unfortunately, the battle isn't over. Clark must deal with Zod, and when given the choice between protecting an innocent family and killing the last remaining link to his Kryptonian heritage, Clark chooses to let Zod and Krypton die. Killing Zod tears Clark apart, and he is comfortable being vulnerable and seeking support from Lois. Now that Clark knows who he is, and the world knows who he is, he can finally stop being a ghost. He can have a real life that balances his humanity as Clark and his Kryptonian abilities as Superman. Clark chooses to be a journalist. He has amazing talents, and he could just always be Superman, yet he chooses to live part of his life as an entry level reporter.

Clark's reaction to killing Zod could have been a great scene if they had showed that it was a real struggle for Clark to choose Earth instead of Krypton, but they didn't.

[

I]Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice[/I] gives us a Clark who cares about social justice. He'd rather investigate a vigilante unfairly punishing the poor than write pabulum for the sports page.

Which didn't make sense. Clark wants to stop a vigilante, like himself, who he feels is too brutal against criminals. Is that the worst person that Clark can find that needs to be stopped? Really? There's no one that's more dangerous? I don't understand Clark's reasoning.

Throughout the film, Clark is slowly barraged with more and more skepticism, cynicism, and judgement for his actions as Superman. He initially decides to handle this by speaking to the Nairomi woman whose criticism before Senator Finch's committee was a scary indictment of Superman. When he fails to connect with her, Clark chooses to take on Batman. When the heat of criticism reaches a fever pitch, Clark voluntarily attends the hearing in Washington, D.C. He's gutted when he cannot prevent a bomb from destroying the Capitol and the lives of the people in it.

But now you mostly just describing the external things that happen in the movie. It doesn't tell me anything about his character.

Clark seeks comfort from Lois and his mother. He wonders what his dad would think: What would he do or say? He reaches a point of despair and retreats to solitude to find answers. What he finds his the voice and wisdom of his father, and it gives him the strength to keep going. He returns to Metropolis, saves Lois, and confronts Lex. Lex goads Superman but cannot get him to lose his cool. Even with his mother's life at stake, Superman attempts to ask Batman for help. He is willing to forge a temporary alliance not only because an innocent life is at stake but also because he now knows Luthor has been orchestrating everything.

Ah, yes, the beautiful character development that happens when Clark retreats to solitude for one scene and has a conversation with himself. They really went deep with that one ... And he doesn't seem to be so willing to forge a temporary alliance, considering that after a few lazy attempts to explain what's going on, he's more interested in kicking Batman's ass.

Superman confronts Lex in the scout ship. After everything Lex put him through, Superman does not hurt him and even saves him from his abomination's fists. He battles Doomsday with all his strength and is willing to risk everything to save his world. Superman dies for his world. He was on the brink of believing the world wasn't ready for him and only corrupts good things, but Batman showed him that there's still hope left. Superman also found his world in Lois.

Batman showed him that there's still hope left because he wouldn't kill Superman when he found out that their mothers shared the same name?

All of this summary boils down to is a Superman who has evolved from an introvert who was bullied but always found a way to make a positive difference in the world as a Good Samaritan to an active superhero who has made connections and stood up for his roles both in his heroic and personal lives. He began with a conflicted bicultural identity and was eventually able to integrate both sides of hiself: Kryptonian and human. Clark is a sweet and thoughtful young man who loves deeply. He's a passionate defender of the poor and disenfranchised, but he's not above pranks to teach bullies lessons. Clark loves having fun with his girlfriend at home, and he doesn't mind cooking for her. He's not a showboat at work, but he will stand up to his boss when he believes it matters. Clark cares about what people think about him, but he will continue to sacrifice and defend people regardless if they are innocent or evil.

I'm not sure what dimensions are missing for you. What would save Clark from being a chess piece? Because I can't say that I would find it difficult to answer any questions about the kind of man Clark Kent has been characterized as in the DCEU. What aspects of his character trouble you the most with their opaqueness?

See, all that you have written here is a lot of good material, and I find some true potential here. But what it boils down to for me, is that I never bought Superman as a true character. I have never felt a struggle with him. A conflict between his human side and his Kryptonian side could make for an excellent conflict, but I feel that they didn't go deep enough. They have these interesting dilemmas, but they botch it in the execution. Superman feels like a chess piece because I don't buy his reasoning, for example for fighting Batman.

First, it's because he's clearly been damaged by a terrible combination of authoritarian parenting paired with power and knowledge. Second, he's a sociopath who only cares about himself. He's uncomfortable living in a world he no longer understands or has the means to control. The existence of beings greater than himself generates fear and insecurity. Lex is in control not because people love him or believe in him, he's in control because he's smart and has money. Superman is a threat to everything that makes Lex feel secure in the world, and he's willing to do anything in order to restore order.

That's a motivation I can buy, but I didn't get all of that when I watched the movie. Maybe I will if I watch it again, or maybe I will still see it as underdeveloped. We'll see.

If you recall, at this point, Bruce is already at a tipping point with regards to Superman. The Knightmare scene already demonstrates how Bruce's own psyche has created a Superman that needs to be stopped by any means necessary. Nonetheless, the warning from the mysterious stranger in the other vision, is a way of underscoring the conclusions Bruce has already drawn. As Flash says, "You were right about him." The most important aspect of the scene is to hint at the broader threat to come, particularly the need to gather together other heroes to fight it.

That still doesn't makes sense. What this mysterious character, who could be what Bruce actually fears, says, which isn't even clear, shouldn't have any impact on man who is supposed to be smart. But, yes, as you say, "The most important aspect of the scene is to hint at the broader threat to come, particularly the need to gather together other heroes to fight it." which has nothing to with the story in BvS, but Justice League, and therefore shouldn't be in the movie.

When people begin to look to a savior figure to save them, then any failure of that savior figure is going to be scary. It suggests that he's not all powerful; he can make mistakes. And if someone with that much power is imperfect, then must there be a Superman? When an ordinary person fails, the consequences are hardly ever severe. If Superman fails, however, his failures are supersized. Even if Superman didn't make the bomb or did his best to save as many lives as he could, the fact that Superman's existence can bring alien armies to Earth and drive men to become suicide bombers, is not a status quo that Batman is content with maintaining.

Bruce also thought that Wallace blamed him for what happened, so that would mean that Bruce also drove Wallace to become a suicide bomber. Why didn't Bruce kill himself?

It's both. Batman sees himself as Superman because they both care about their mothers, but he also sees himself in the same position as the man who killed his parents. He was about to do to Clark and Lois what was done to Thomas and Martha. Batman and Superman have both had mothers named Martha since their very early days as comic book characters. You may find it ridiculous, but I loved how the film used a decades-old parallel to juxtapose these two men and their humanity. I find the idea that something so intimate and so human cut through the adrenaline, fear, and rage to be profoundly moving.

But while Batman was trying to kill Superman, he already knew that Superman had parents who loved him. He said to Superman:"I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason.". It was the fact that Superman's mother had the name "Martha" that changed everything for Batman.

In the photos Lex showed Superman, his mother was gagged. In later shots of Martha, we see that she is clearly not crying out to her son. Superman did not try to find his mother after she was taken because Lex was explicit that if he was seen even flying towards her location, Martha would be killed instantly. Superman needed Batman to save Martha because he wasn't expected to save Martha.

Considering how fast Superman is, how would anyone even see where he flies?

I honestly have no idea. But I also don't know if it would have been wise to destroy the ship either. I'm pretty sure Superman couldn't destroy a piece of technology like that in the midst of creating a deformity without causing unintended negative consequences. For all we know, destroying the ship in the middle of the activation process could have transferred its power to random areas throughout the city. A city full of Doomsdays, part Doomsdays, or other monstrous hybrids could have been created along with other forms of destruction relating to the energy drain.

Fair enough.

Wonder Woman very much was needed for this movie. She is a living example of what comes next after the central conflict between Batman and Superman is resolved. As a hero who abandoned humanity because she believed heroes could no longer join together to prevent horrors, her emergence at the end of the film after hints of her peripheral involvement suggest a paradigm shift for her and heroes like her. Rather than pull focus from Batman and Superman, Wonder Woman serves a foil for both characters.

But why was that part needed in this movie about the conflict between Batman and Superman? Batman is already the living example of what comes next, and he too had abandoned his humanity.

The conflict between Batman and Superman is logical and simple. Batman is deep into his vigilante career at the point we meet him. He's lost friends, and he feels like a failure. When he first saw Superman, it was from a pile of rubble from his own company in Metropolis. Batman sees Superman as likely to follow the same path as himself: someone who starts off trying to do good and whose attempts to make a difference only make things worse. Batman is fed up with half-measures that only maintain a status quo. With no children, no end to crime in Gotham, Bruce wants a legacy. Even though Superman is a force for good, he is dangerous.

Superman sees Batman as a hero who gives other heroes a bad name. He's been corrupted by his own power, and he is starting to hurt more than he helps. Superman does not see justice when he examines Batman's efforts to save Gotham. In short, while the public is preoccupied with attacking Superman, Clark sees Batman as a man who is legitimately stepping over a line. His goal is ultimately just to get Batman to retire before things get worse. Batman's refusal to even listen to Superman's request for help is the catalyst for Superman to engage in active conflict.

In short, Batman wants to hunt Superman because he believes he is corruptible and being corrupted. Superman wants to encourage Batman to retire because he believes he has already been corrupted. Both want to prevent innocent people and even bad people from being unjustly harmed. They believe they are doing what is best for the world.

If this is true:"Batman sees Superman as likely to follow the same path as himself: someone who starts off trying to do good and whose attempts to make a difference only make things worse.", then Batman should also kill himself.

And if Superman wants to stop Batman because he gives heros a bad name, then Superman should also stop himself, because he's also giving heroes a bad name. And doesn't Superman have more important stuff to do than stopping a hero who steps over the line when dealing with criminals? Maybe stopping some wars or mass murderes? Nah, screw that.

 

[Whatupman]

It took a few rewatches, but I eventually came round to totally understanding Batman's motives in this movie, flawed as they were.

As a child having his parents forcibly taken from him, he was surely left with feelings of powerlessness, anxiety, insecurity, and isolation. And as time passed, that grew into an ceaseless rage that (combined with his fortune and resources) led to him becoming Batman and waging a 20-year fight on criminality in Gotham. Being Batman is what allowed him to take back power, and control. To deliver justice as he saw fit. And to quote from BvS newspaper clippings, to become judge, and jury, and executioner.

When the events of MOS occurred, his perspective was given was a sideways blow. Criminals didn't matter any more; they were small fish in a big sea. There were other events going on in the world; apocalyptic events which were beyond the power of humanity to control, events being orchestrated by races of beings from far out in the universe with powers beyond comprehension.

And once again, Bruce was reduced to that small boy, powerless to stop things, losing his 'family' (in the Wayne building) and facing a growing insecurity about his place in the world. He had been returned to the one place he never, ever wanted to go again.

So he does what he's always done. His rage kicks in, and his brutality steps up a notch. Superman - be he good or bad, it doesn't matter - now represents all that Batman fears, and his paranoid and jaded psyche conjures up images of an Earth destroyed, with a maniacal Superman ruling over what's left. This is what ultimately drives Batman to deliver such a brutal beating to Superman, and to arrive at the point where is almost prepared to murder him.

As we know, he teeters back from the precipice at the last minute, clearing his mind of the fog which has enveloped it when he is startled by the utterance of a single word - 'Martha' - which means so much to both him and Superman. It is a word that reminds him why he became Batman in the first place, which was to fight injustice and to stop murders like this ever happening again, and makes him realise he has now become that which he has fought against for so long.

The motivation works for me, because two straight-thinking heroes would never resort to the type of brutal fight that Batman and Superman engaged in. There's no question that Batman in this film is not straight-thinking initially, and is presented almost as a villain, and that why's the fight occurs how it does. He's not a villain because he's is devoid of goodness, but because he has let his anger and rage take control of his sensibilities. His reasons for wanting Superman dead are driven by paranoia, and his actions in pursuing his goal are selfish and misguided. Ultimately though he comes to his senses, rejects what he has been trying to convince himself of, and redeems himself somewhat by saving Martha Kent. Bruce himself realises that he was the one in the wrong when he watches Clark's funeral and utters the words "I've failed him ........... in life."

It is a measure of Superman's capacity for forgiveness and understanding that despite being almost murdered by Batman, he immediately accepts his help in saving Martha and doesn't seem to harbour any resentment towards him from that point on. And not only that, but to give his life to save Earth despite the vitriol and blame throw at him from some quarters (Batman included) for the events which occurred in MOS, and at the start of BvS. This convinces Batman that there's still good in men; that they still have the capacity to do the right thing even when under immense pressure and having enough power to do anything they want to.

I was actually talking about Lex's motivation, but I also had a problem with Batman's, so thanks for this.

 

[elgaz]

I also found it interesting that Bruce's 'redemption' leads to him not just befriending Superman, but actually engaging with the idea that he is going to bring the other metahumans/superheroes together to form a team. It brings a complete 180 degree slant on his monologue earlier in the film, where he criticizes Superman as someone who could just tear the whole place down if he wanted to.

The redeemed Batman is someone willing to trust in others, whereas that was a foreign concept to the old Batman. I know some people are bemoaning the fact that Superman isn't the one bringing the team together, but I think it's an important part of the character development of this particular universe's Batman/Bruce.

I don't think it's hugely important that Superman be the one forming the team. That's a strategic position, which is what Batman excels at. Superman's role should be to inspire hope and provide leadership when needed, and I have a feeling his return in JL will come at a time when the team needs that; when it has lost heart, or perhaps facing defeat. No doubt there will be some Messianic overtones surrounding his return. He has been portrayed many times as a Christ-like figure, and even BvS makes explicit references to him as a saviour, as a God, as an angel, and so on.

 

[Da-Scribe]

How do you know that the images in that sequence doesn't cause a change in Bruce? And how are we seeing images of how Bruce has changed, when he actually doesn't make any choices in the dream? He's passive, so how do we see that he is changing in the dream?

Bruce doesn't do anything he wasn't already going to after the "dreams." Thus, no change. The dreams themselves however are monstrous, vivid, and post-apolcalyptic. That visualizes Bruce's incredibly fractured psyche. He literally goes from being lifted by bats to being attacked by one. That's possibly the biggest visual cue as to how Bruce sees his quest as Batman. He goes from conquering fear to being actually consumed by it. These are things we already know. We see them in his words/actions, in Alfred's speechifying, in the testimonies of various Gothamites. The dreams were simply a reoccurring motif to hammer that concept home.

Which didn't make sense. Clark wants to stop a vigilante, like himself, who he feels is too brutal against criminals. Is that the worst person that Clark can find that needs to be stopped? Really? There's no one that's more dangerous? I don't understand Clark's reasoning.

So, Clark should just ignore the fact that a lot of the citizens in his neighboring city are living in fear of a vigilante? He should just ignore that people are, seemingly, dying after encountering Batman because he's branding them? Seriously? There's a guy with military grade weaponry serving as judge, jury, and executioner in an already impoverished and crime ridden city. And you're telling me that Clark shouldn't bother because there are worse people? There will always be worse people. That doesn't mean you turn a blind eye to obvious violators of basic human rights. It isn't about the size of the criminal. It's about who is getting hurt. And from what Clark saw, innocent families are getting hurt.

But now you mostly just describing the external things that happen in the movie. It doesn't tell me anything about his character.

She literally just explained so much about Clark's character that it's becoming apparent to me that you're more concerned with maintaining your position that with having an actual conversation. A woman very clearly lies about Superman's involvement and Superman does what? He tries to talk to her as Clark, the human. When the government seemingly wants to crucify him in a Senate hearing, he does what? He shows up to listen as Superman, the alien. This is so important because it draws a clear parallel between his humanity and his alien nature, where characters such as Batman saw such a clear distinction. Whether he is Clark the journalist or Kal-El the Superman, he is still a person willing to discuss. He is willing to stand down. Something that our other titular character was failing to do on all sides.

Ah, yes, the beautiful character development that happens when Clark retreats to solitude for one scene and has a conversation with himself. They really went deep with that one ... And he doesn't seem to be so willing to forge a temporary alliance, considering that after a few lazy attempts to explain what's going on, he's more interested in kicking Batman's ass.

Clark goes on a walk and remembers a story his father told him. That's quite possibly one of the most human reactions to a personal strife there is. It shows just how much of an average joe Superman really is. He doesn't go and project all of his hate and fear onto someone else. He doesn't go trying to conquer humanity. He takes a walk and thinks about his dad. It didn't need to be any deeper than that. It's simplicity is what makes it so powerful.

And please do keep in mind that film explicitly states that Batman can't be reasoned with. He has to be forced too. Superman heard this from a victim's family and then saw it firsthand on two occasions. He tells Batman to retire and Batman doesn't. He tried to tell Batman that they're being played and Batman just keeps trying to lure him into traps. Even when he tells Batman he doesn't understand, Batman just yells that he does. Words weren't working. Maybe a fist would. Superman's error wasn't in trying to beat Batman into submission. We learn in the film that's the only way to possibly get through to him. His error was in underestimating just how tactical this man really was. Superman never thought he might die in this encounter. That was his one real mistake. The other stuff was more of a "I don't have time to try to reason with someone that can't be reasoned with. Better to just end this quick and talk him down after." sorta thinking that was explicitly deemed necessary in the film.

Batman showed him that there's still hope left because he wouldn't kill Superman when he found out that their mothers shared the same name?

No. He showed him that even a man that had gone so far over the edge could be pulled back. That there was indeed still so much good left in the world. The same name thing was merely a catalyst. The trail of thought goes like this: The guy I hate with everything in my being said my mother's name. Why? Because that's Superman's mother's name too. Because Superman has a mother. A mother that's in danger. I nearly killed a son. I nearly killed a man in front of his love. I nearly became Joe Chill. I am my own enemy. To quote the wise Nick Miller, "The enemy is the inner me." Batman had effectively played himself for nearly two years and that moment was the realization finally hitting him.

See, all that you have written here is a lot of good material, and I find some true potential here. But what it boils down to for me, is that I never bought Superman as a true character. I have never felt a struggle with him. A conflict between his human side and his Kryptonian side could make for an excellent conflict, but I feel that they didn't go deep enough. They have these interesting dilemmas, but they botch it in the execution. Superman feels like a chess piece because I don't buy his reasoning, for example for fighting Batman.

All this has been explained already. I'm not going continue beating that dead horse.

That's a motivation I can buy, but I didn't get all of that when I watched the movie. Maybe I will if I watch it again, or maybe I will still see it as underdeveloped. We'll see.

It's made quite explicit in either version of the film. How you failed to see that is beyond me. Lex literally says these things himself on multiple occasions.

That still doesn't makes sense. What this mysterious character, who could be what Bruce actually fears, says, which isn't even clear, shouldn't have any impact on man who is supposed to be smart. But, yes, as you say, "The most important aspect of the scene is to hint at the broader threat to come, particularly the need to gather together other heroes to fight it." which has nothing to with the story in BvS, but Justice League, and therefore shouldn't be in the movie.

It didn't impact Bruce. Bruce already had made up his mind. It was merely highlighting what he already knew. At any rate, the scene plays as a warning about Superman for Bruce, when it's most likely a warning about Darkseid for the audience. Ultimately, it's a dream for Bruce and a deus ex machina for the film itself, as Flash does what Flash does and goes back in the past to change things.

So it plays two roles in both furthering the story, but also peppering in references of what's to come. But to claim that, because it hints at other movies that it shouldn't be in BvS is ridiculous. These are interconnected films. They all need to have world-building elements.

Bruce also thought that Wallace blamed him for what happened, so that would mean that Bruce also drove Wallace to become a suicide bomber. Why didn't Bruce kill himself?

Bruce felt he failed to protect Wally and various others by failing to prevent the threat of Superman. So, his goal was to finally take down Superman. Who's to say he wouldn't have killed himself after though? He talks about killing Superman as if it will be the only thing he does in life with any meaning, so it's very possible he would have. Who knows though?

But while Batman was trying to kill Superman, he already knew that Superman had parents who loved him. He said to Superman:"I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason.". It was the fact that Superman's mother had the name "Martha" that changed everything for Batman.

No. He knew Superman had parents, but that's where it ended. We have no reason to assume he thought Superman came from a loving household. Batman is more likely to have simply believed Superman's parents offered the same sort of threat as Superman himself. Once he learns that Superman has a mom that's in danger and that Superman was really just a son trying to save his mom, well that changes things.

Considering how fast Superman is, how would anyone even see where he flies?

He breaks the sound barrier. It's loud. We'd already seen Lex's people use this as a cue at the beginning of the film. Also, he hadn't been listening for Martha, so he would've had to. That would've meant getting a scene of Superman filtering out all of the other cries for help in the city to save one person. Which, while understandable, isn't the most favorable light to paint Superman in. So, Snyder fortunately cut that scene.

But why was that part needed in this movie about the conflict between Batman and Superman? Batman is already the living example of what comes next, and he too had abandoned his humanity.

Wonder Woman serves a few different purposes. She helps to further explain Lex's Metahuman Thesis, which was basically the driving force of his actions during the film. She's there to help take down Doomsday. And she's there for world-building, which is insanely important when you have a bunch of interconnected films. It's just richer storytelling in grand scheme of it all. I mean, Bucky was wholly unmemorable in TFA, but his inclusion is paid off down the line.

If this is true:"Batman sees Superman as likely to follow the same path as himself: someone who starts off trying to do good and whose attempts to make a difference only make things worse.", then Batman should also kill himself.

The difference here is that Batman isn't capable of enslaving humanity should things go south. And again, perhaps Batman would kill himself later. But that's sort of irrelevant. The larger issue is that Superman can in fact wipe out the entire human race and the world has seemingly become more violent since his arrival. That needs to be stopped.

And if Superman wants to stop Batman because he gives heros a bad name, then Superman should also stop himself, because he's also giving heroes a bad name. And doesn't Superman have more important stuff to do than stopping a hero who steps over the line when dealing with criminals? Maybe stopping some wars or mass murderes? Nah, screw that.

But Superman is at least trying to change. He's trying to talk to apparent victims. He's trying to attend Senate hearings about his very existence. Batman was way beyond all that, which is why he needed to be stopped. And again, Superman isn't restricted to global threats. He's there even for smaller scale stuff. That's sort of what makes him so appealing. It's not always just about saving the entire planet. Sometimes it's just the neighbors that need a little help. Stopping Batman was pretty much that.

 

[Broseph44]

What the hell is going on in here haha

 

[IronManHype]

What the hell is going on in here haha

BvS is such a good movie that people have to write essays explaining it.

 

[Paradox1]

It took a few rewatches, but I eventually came round to totally understanding Batman's motives in this movie, flawed as they were.

As a child having his parents forcibly taken from him, he was surely left with feelings of powerlessness, anxiety, insecurity, and isolation. And as time passed, that grew into an ceaseless rage that (combined with his fortune and resources) led to him becoming Batman and waging a 20-year fight on criminality in Gotham. Being Batman is what allowed him to take back power, and control. To deliver justice as he saw fit. And to quote from BvS newspaper clippings, to become judge, and jury, and executioner.

When the events of MOS occurred, his perspective was given was a sideways blow. Criminals didn't matter any more; they were small fish in a big sea. There were other events going on in the world; apocalyptic events which were beyond the power of humanity to control, events being orchestrated by races of beings from far out in the universe with powers beyond comprehension.

And once again, Bruce was reduced to that small boy, powerless to stop things, losing his 'family' (in the Wayne building) and facing a growing insecurity about his place in the world. He had been returned to the one place he never, ever wanted to go again.

So he does what he's always done. His rage kicks in, and his brutality steps up a notch. Superman - be he good or bad, it doesn't matter - now represents all that Batman fears, and his paranoid and jaded psyche conjures up images of an Earth destroyed, with a maniacal Superman ruling over what's left. This is what ultimately drives Batman to deliver such a brutal beating to Superman, and to arrive at the point where is almost prepared to murder him.

As we know, he teeters back from the precipice at the last minute, clearing his mind of the fog which has enveloped it when he is startled by the utterance of a single word - 'Martha' - which means so much to both him and Superman. It is a word that reminds him why he became Batman in the first place, which was to fight injustice and to stop murders like this ever happening again, and makes him realise he has now become that which he has fought against for so long.

The motivation works for me, because two straight-thinking heroes would never resort to the type of brutal fight that Batman and Superman engaged in. There's no question that Batman in this film is not straight-thinking initially, and is presented almost as a villain, and that why's the fight occurs how it does. He's not a villain because he's is devoid of goodness, but because he has let his anger and rage take control of his sensibilities. His reasons for wanting Superman dead are driven by paranoia, and his actions in pursuing his goal are selfish and misguided. Ultimately though he comes to his senses, rejects what he has been trying to convince himself of, and redeems himself somewhat by saving Martha Kent. Bruce himself realises that he was the one in the wrong when he watches Clark's funeral and utters the words "I've failed him ........... in life."

It is a measure of Superman's capacity for forgiveness and understanding that despite being almost murdered by Batman, he immediately accepts his help in saving Martha and doesn't seem to harbour any resentment towards him from that point on. And not only that, but to give his life to save Earth despite the vitriol and blame throw at him from some quarters (Batman included) for the events which occurred in MOS, and at the start of BvS. This convinces Batman that there's still good in men; that they still have the capacity to do the right thing even when under immense pressure and having enough power to do anything they want to.

I like this point

 

[Micromind]

Batman as shown in BvS is neither world' greatest detective not he is thinking logically, without Alfred he would have gone insane, as Alfred says "Even you've got too old to die young, though not for lack of trying.", which suggests that he has become quite reckless and is lucky to have survived this long.

Batman is a shadow of his former self.

 

[Sleiek]

Saw the Ultimate Edition. Couldn't wait until the Blu Ray release.

The extended cut is better than I thought it would be considering I am one of those whole already like the theatrical cut. But every now and then, it does feel like a new movie because there are things going on I didn't know about it. It is not total Night and Day for me since I like both versions. But for the first hour, I felt like I was watching a different movie.

I didn't know what "breathing room" people were talking about until I saw this cut. I felt it. I was given time to think on a scene and I appreciate that. There was a moment when I saw the theatrical cut the first time around where I felt a little bored/waiting to get to the action but this time, I was into it from start to finish. Big mistake on WB for not releasing this instead. Totally agree with this as it's been repeated thousands of times in the last week.

Feels complete, feels more emotional, new sounds, better character moments. Better than I thought it would be. Character motivations are solid, even the story is near solid considering this is a comic book movie we are talking about. 2 Thumbs up + 2 Toes up from me.

I have seen the film 3 times in the theatre already but I got chills this time as if I am watching it for the first time.

 

[idiot09]

Saw the Ultimate Edition. Couldn't wait until the Blu Ray release.

The extended cut is better than I thought it would be considering I am one of those whole already like the theatrical cut. But every now and then, it does feel like a new movie because there are things going on I didn't know about it. It is not total Night and Day for me since I like both versions. But for the first hour, I felt like I was watching a different movie.

I didn't know what "breathing room" people were talking about until I saw this cut. I felt it. I was given time to think on a scene and I appreciate that. There was a moment when I saw the theatrical cut the first time around where I felt a little bored/waiting to get to the action but this time, I was into it from start to finish. Big mistake on WB for not releasing this instead. Totally agree with this as it's been repeated thousands of times in the last week.

Feels complete, feels more emotional, new sounds, better character moments. Better than I thought it would be. Character motivations are solid, even the story is near solid considering this is a comic book movie we are talking about. 2 Thumbs up 2 Toes up from me.

I have seen the film 3 times in the theatre already but I got chills this time as if I am watching it for the first time.

Same here.I remember telling you I felt the impact of superman much more with the additional scenes of Clark and the beautiful sequence of empty Metropolis.Did you feel it to?