BvS The BvS Ultimate Cut Thread - Part 2

[NeoRanger]

Well, there's always story happening, in every scene there's story happening. I disagree that it's an active change. Clark is on the mountain and gets a vision of his father. Then it's what the father tells him that makes him see the light. And then the scene ends. For me, Clark's passive in that scene. Change comes from how characters act when they're put under pressure, but there's no pressure on Clark in that scene, so he reacts instead of acts. I would have wanted to see a longer sequence, so we can spend some time with the character development, and not make it rushed. The character development came way too easy for me.

As gdw said, Clark's talking to himself in that scene. The story his dad tells him is a story he already knows, he only remembers it as something to relate to it because he is soul-searching. The mountain scene ties back to the "righting wrongs for a ghost" (meaning Superman had, in fact, been passive since Zod) and to the earlier scene where he calls his mom and asks her why Jonathan never traveled. When he goes back, he makes the conscious choice to do so himself. In that scene he sheds away the burden-- the burden of his father's expectations of him (to be a hero) and the burden the world around him puts on his shoulders. He goes back to Metropolis to just be himself and look for an anchor in the world that will help him deal with things when not everything goes according to plan. He relates to his father, sure, but he's not following instructions.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that Superman could have used his super speed and finished the fight even before Batman had an opportunity to use his weapons. And Superman must have known that Batman had some weapons ready, considering what he's seen of Batman previously.

I know, but Batman's weapons couldn't touch him before. Save for that World Engine in Man of Steel, nothing could. He didn't know he had to use his super-speed to get ahead of Batman that he had to do anything other than stand there and look really tall. And as far as negotiations go, it's generally better to not poke the bear any more than you have to. If anything, that's the primary problem with how this fight starts; he went to the poking bit a little too quickly and it backfired.

Correction, they didn't WANT to understand the scene.

As much as I have defended this scene, it's also the most heavy handed moment in the film. This movie had no problem NOT spelling things out for the audience, using subtle facial expressions and such to imply a lot of the story, and then it goes and beats you over the head with Bruce's multiple flash backs in this moment.

While I think it did need the flashbacks, I think it could have been FAR more deftly handled than it ultimately was.

Let's be fair; it's not the audience's fault at that point. The flashbacks draw the parallel, but the fact they are so needed means that the film-makers knew something would get lost in the translation. The execution of the scene just isn't very good and that's primarily because of the dialogue in that entire sequence. Even if the audience got the reason behind the resolution, they dismissed it, because it just didn't resonate with them. It didn't resonate with them, because it was poorly executed.

 

[Da-Scribe]

The flashbacks weren't needed and I don't think audiences are choosing to not understand what happened. I think it's just an easy scene to meme and people like poking fun at movies.

It's sorta like naming your kid "Renard." It's not that Renard is a bad name at all. It's just that Renard is an easy name to make fun of. That Martha scene, much as I liked it, was like the Renard of movie turning points.

 

[Whatupman]

Except that's NOT what happened. Sorry, but I am SO sick of the Martha moment being so blatantly misrepresented.

The name, out of context, is what shocks Bruce enough to stop him in his tracks.
However, the name is NOT what makes Bruce change his mind. It is the humanizing of Superman that happens in the moment, and realization that he, Bruce, is about the become the very thing that he's been fighting almost his entire life.

In other words:
1. The name, without context (meaning, to Bruce at this point, it has NOTHING to do with their mother's sharing a name) shocks and confuses Bruce enough to give him pause.
2. When Lois explains that it's Superman's mother's name, it humanizes Superman in his eyes. Again, because he HAS a mother, NOT because she has the same name as Bruce's.
3. Bruce realizes that he is not only killing Superman, but allowing his mother to be killed, thereby hammering home how Bruce, in his anger, had become the very thing he hated; the same monster that created the Batman in the first place.

So, while the name coincidence is the TRIGGER, it is not the REASON for Bruce changing his mind, and them subsequently teaming up.

So, Batman realizes that Superman has a mother after Lois explains it? You're forgetting the part where Batman talks about Superman's parents earlier on in the movie. And he still wanted to kill Superman. It's first when he learns that their mothers shared the same name that he reconsiders. So your interpretation falls apart. And I never said that the name alone is the thing that makes Batman reconsider.

You're ignoring the fact that Clark is actually talking to HIMSELF. He's not having a hallucination, or a visit from a ghost; he's reflecting on himself, and his memories of his father.

An active character takes action in direct conflict with the people and the world around him. A passive character is outwardly inactive while pursuing desire inwardly, in conflict with aspects of his or her own nature. What you just described is a passive character.

As gdw said, Clark's talking to himself in that scene. The story his dad tells him is a story he already knows, he only remembers it as something to relate to it because he is soul-searching. The mountain scene ties back to the "righting wrongs for a ghost" (meaning Superman had, in fact, been passive since Zod) and to the earlier scene where he calls his mom and asks her why Jonathan never traveled. When he goes back, he makes the conscious choice to do so himself. In that scene he sheds away the burden-- the burden of his father's expectations of him (to be a hero) and the burden the world around him puts on his shoulders. He goes back to Metropolis to just be himself and look for an anchor in the world that will help him deal with things when not everything goes according to plan. He relates to his father, sure, but he's not following instructions.

See above.

 

[chintai80]

The flashbacks weren't needed and I don't think audiences are choosing to not understand what happened. I think it's just an easy scene to meme and people like poking fun at movies.

It's sorta like naming your kid "Renard." It's not that Renard is a bad name at all. It's just that Renard is an easy name to make fun of. That Martha scene, much as I liked it, was like the Renard of movie turning points.

^ Renard!
I agree. I liked the scene, but too easy to make a meme out of it as well.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Whatupman, I think the difference here is that Batman referred to Superman's parents as more of a concept. And he really only brought them up to make a larger point about his own outlook and why he was doing what he was doing to Superman.

The Martha moment allowed the idea of Superman having parents to no longer be purely conceptual and used rhetorically. It was the moment that Batman realized that Superman did indeed have a living, breathing parent that was about to die.

It wasn't so much that she had the same name, that was merely the trigger. It gave him enough pause to allow for rational thought to creep in. As he thought back to his own parents' murder and looked upon Superman and Lois, he saw a parallel between himself and his parents' killer. That was what actually made him drop his whole murder plot.

Have you ever seen Silicon Valley? There's a scene where the main character, Richard, comes up with this groundbreaking compression algorithm and it's brought on by watching his peers discuss how best to...use their hands to please every man in the audience. That doesn't literally mean the compression algorithm is about bringing men to completion. It's just the initial idea that helped break Richard out of his funk and see something greater.

 

[Whatupman]

Whatupman, I think the difference here is that Batman referred to Superman's parents as more of a concept. And he really only brought them up to make a larger point about his own outlook and why he was doing what he was doing to Superman.

The Martha moment allowed the idea of Superman having parents to no longer be purely conceptual and used rhetorically. It was the moment that Batman realized that Superman did indeed have a living, breathing parent that was about to die.

It wasn't so much that she had the same name, that was merely the trigger. It gave him enough pause to allow for rational thought to creep in. As he thought back to his own parents' murder and looked upon Superman and Lois, he saw a parallel between himself and his parents' killer. That was what actually made him drop his whole murder plot.

Have you ever seen Silicon Valley? There's a scene where the main character, Richard, comes up with this groundbreaking compression algorithm and it's brought on by watching his peers discuss how best to...use their hands to please every man in the audience. That doesn't literally mean the compression algorithm is about bringing men to completion. It's just the initial idea that helped break Richard out of his funk and see something greater.

I could accept that "Martha" moment better if Batman didn't talk about Superman's parents at all beforehand. I get what you mean about him thinking about them more like a concept, but the fact that he's actually thinking about it and has accepted the fact that Superman can be someone's son, makes the realization that he actually has a mother, lose a lot of power for me. Batman's previous line about Superman's parent shouldn't have been there, and as Neoranger said, it was only added because it's a reference to Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.

Haha, and I have seen Silicon Valley. t:

 

[TeeKay]

I've always said this, Superman in this universe is a reactive character even more so in MoS. And Whatupman is right, it makes so sense for batman to realise that Superman has a mother when beforehand he was taunting Supes about his parents. It doesn't work.

 

[TeeKay]

Correction, they didn't WANT to understand the scene.

As much as I have defended this scene, it's also the most heavy handed moment in the film. This movie had no problem NOT spelling things out for the audience, using subtle facial expressions and such to imply a lot of the story, and then it goes and beats you over the head with Bruce's multiple flash backs in this moment.

While I think it did need the flashbacks, I think it could have been FAR more deftly handled than it ultimately was.

Correction, we understood it just fine. We just didn't like it. It was contrived and for me just didn't make sense. No wonder why it's become a laughing stock. It's poor execution and direction that led to that.

 

[misslane38]

I've always said this, Superman in this universe is a reactive character even more so in MoS. And Whatupman is right, it makes so sense for batman to realise that Superman has a mother when beforehand he was taunting Supes about his parents. It doesn't work.

Batman's taunting came from a position of detachment. It was obvious he had no idea the full truth about Superman. Of course, Batman knew Superman had parents because everyone has parents. What Batman didn't know was who those parents were. They could have been two dead people from another world he would never know.

Batman had othered Superman so much in his mind in order to rationalize his actions that he had to view his parents with the same detachment and as individuals complicit in stoking Superman's hubris. In other words, Batman's perception of Clark's parents was an abstraction that he could project onto whatever justified his own paranoia and violence.

When Bruce hears Clark call for his mother, Martha, then that abstract mother has a name. She's real, and she's not only real, but she needs her son's help. Batman sees that his actions -- killing Superman -- would be stealing a son from his mother and a mother from her son. The immediacy, closeness, and intimacy of the moment clarified the abstraction into something real. He was able to connect in a way he wasn't able to before.

ETA: The above analysis of the "Martha" moment is, of course, only part of what serves as a catalyst for change in Bruce in the scene. The fact that the image in front of him mirrors the image of his dying parents with him in the role of the shooter makes him the villain of his own nightmares.

 

[C. Lee]

Correction, they didn't WANT to understand the scene.

OR.....they wanted to understand it, and they did understand it, but they came to a different conclusion and so have a different OPINION about it than you do.

 

[TeeKay]

Batman's taunting came from a position of detachment. It was obvious he had no idea the full truth about Superman. Of course, Batman knew Superman had parents because everyone has parents. What Batman didn't know was who those parents were. They could have been two dead people from another world he would never know.

Batman had othered Superman so much in his mind in order to rationalize his actions that he had to view his parents with the same detachment and as individuals complicit in stoking Superman's hubris. In other words, Batman's perception of Clark's parents was an abstraction that he could project onto whatever justified his own paranoia and violence.

When Bruce hears Clark call for his mother, Martha, then that abstract mother has a name. She's real, and she's not only real, but she needs her son's help. Batman sees that his actions -- killing Superman -- would be stealing a son from his mother and a mother from her son. The immediacy, closeness, and intimacy of the moment clarified the abstraction into something real. He was able to connect in a way he wasn't able to before.

Wait so if his mother from Krypton was still alive and he said his name would the scene still be any different? So let's be real because the scene also has a lot to do with the fact their mothers share the same name. That's what the flashback was there for. So if Clarks mom was named Maria or Sarah would the scene be any different? That's my question. Because the way the movie executed the moment was basically, "your mom and my mom share the same name so we should stop fighting". It was sloppily done. That's why it's being mocked and u have people arguing over it.

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

Does anyone think that scene could be easily improved in a recut?

Just remove the parents line when Bruce smashes Clark against the pillars. After the whole Martha thing happens, we don't go into a straight flashback. Instead, we have shots paralleling the characters in the past and the characters in the present.

So we have a shot of Clark, and then we see Thomas. We see the spear, then we see the gun. Then we see Bruce, and we get a shot of Joe Chill. Not sure if that's clearer, but I would prefer this to what we got in the TC and the UE. Heck, if someone could just remove Martha and somehow work in the "my mother" from MoS that would be great.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Eh, I don't think there's anything wrong with a reactive character so long as they make efforts to be take control and they eventually become active. He kind of has to be reactive for awhile considering he's up against two incredibly resourceful antagonists.

Also, to me there's a big different between referencing a person's parents conceptually and rhetorically vs. actually acknowledging the physical existence of that person's parents. If I were to hypothesize about having a kid, I could say just about anything. And by the logic in this thread, that would be me ultimately accepting the reality of me having a kid. So then, if I were to find out I did in fact have an illegitimate child running around, am I not allowed to react differently to the reality that I now have a child in this physical world?

 

[misslane38]

Wait so if his mother from Krypton was still alive and he said his name would the scene still be any different? So let's be real because the scene also has a lot to do with the fact their mothers share the same name. That's what the flashback was there for. So if Clarks mom was named Maria or Sarah would the scene be any different? That's my question. Because the way the movie executed the moment was basically, "your mom and my mom share the same name so we should stop fighting". It was sloppily done. That's why it's being mocked and u have people arguing over it.

No, the scene wouldn't be any different. The name is meaningless. What matters is what the name represents. The scene is very deliberate in how it shows Bruce softening. While Bruce does stop when Clark says "Martha," he doesn't actually stand down until he learns that it's his mother's name. The movie was not sloppy. The only reason why the name "Martha" mattered was that it temporarily stopped Batman from attacking Superman. If you notice, however, even when he was stopped, he was obviously enraged. The name itself did not calm Batman's rage or get him to throw away his deadly kryptonite spear. It was connecting the name to a living, breathing mother who was about to die that caused a change, a real change, that saved Superman's life. The chronology, blocking, and dialogue of the scene make this very clear, in my opinion, so I have no idea why it is mocke or is source of controversy.

 

[misslane38]

Does anyone think that scene could be easily improved in a recut?

Just remove the parents line when Bruce smashes Clark against the pillars. After the whole Martha thing happens, we don't go into a straight flashback. Instead, we have shots paralleling the characters in the past and the characters in the present.

So we have a shot of Clark, and then we see Thomas. We see the spear, then we see the gun. Then we see Bruce, and we get a shot of Joe Chill. Not sure if that's clearer, but I would prefer this to what we got in the TC and the UE. Heck, if someone could just remove Martha and somehow work in the "my mother" from MoS that would be great.

That could have worked, too, but I am not really interested in dumbing things down further to the point of being pedantic just to avoid silly memes and debates.

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

No, the scene wouldn't be any different. The name is meaningless. What matters is what the name represents. The scene is very deliberate in how it shows Bruce softening. While Bruce does stop when Clark says his mother's name, he doesn't actually stand down until he learns that it's his mother's name. The movie was not sloppy. The only reason why the name "Martha" mattered was that it temporarily stopped Batman from attacking Superman. If you notice, however, even when he was stopped, he was obviously enraged. The name itself did not calm Batman's rage or get him to throw away his deadly kryptonite spear. It was connecting the name to a living, breathing mother who was about to die that caused a change, a real change, that saved Superman's life. The chronology, blocking, and dialogue of the scene make this very clear, in my opinion, so I have no idea why it is mocke or is source of controversy.

That's still ignoring the fact it's dumb for Clark to call his mother by her first name. It's seriously contrived just so that coincidence can be hammered home when the scene should've been anchored by Bruce's realization that Superman has a mother in danger.

The scene would've worked far better had Clark just siad, "You're letting him kill my mother." There's something far more intimate about the word "mother" than "Martha" because the former isn't just a name, even if it is the name of Bruce's mother. Clark pleading for his own mother's life by using the word "mother" would've appealed more directly to Bruce and it wouldn't distract from the meaning of the scene.

 

[TeeKay]

That could have worked, too, but I am not really interested in dumbing things down further to the point of being pedantic just to avoid silly memes and debates.

Yeah how's that dumbing it down? Is is not normal for someone to call their mother "mom" instead of their first name? Come on...

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

Yeah how's that dumbing it down? Is is not normal for someone to call their mother "mom" instead of their first name? Come on...

I'm going to call my mom by her first name because Superman does it. Thank you Based Snyder.

 

[TeeKay]

I'm going to call my mom by her first name because Superman does it. Thank you Based Snyder.

If I called my mom by her first name, I won't live long enough to see the next day.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Yeah, I think if it had been a different name then it just would've had different dialogue. Superman could've said "You have to save ben." And Bruce would've just been like "Who is ben? What are you south american or something?"

Ultimately he just needed to hear something to give him pause. I think they went with Martha because there's just an obvious parallel that would no doubt cause Bruce to think back to his own childhood and how he'd made a very tragic 180.

As far as him using her first name. He may not have wanted to reveal that Martha was his mom, feeling it safer to keep that bit to himself given how she was expressly targeted for being his mother in both MoS and like 15 minutes earlier in BvS. That's honestly just what I assumed when I first saw the movie. Plus it works better thematically speaking, considering "Martha" was the last thing Bruce heard from his dying father. That's bound to have an impact given the context.

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

If I do that with my own, I won't live long enough to see the next day.

Me neither.

 

[misslane38]

That's still ignoring the fact it's dumb for Clark to call his mother by her first name. It's seriously contrived just so that coincidence can be hammered home when the scene should've been anchored by Bruce's realization that Superman has a mother in danger.

The scene would've worked far better had Clark just siad, "You're letting him kill my mother." There's something far more intimate about the word "mother" than "Martha" because the former isn't just a name, even if it is the name of Bruce's mother. Clark pleading for his own mother's life by using the word "mother" would've appealed more directly to Bruce and it wouldn't distract from the meaning of the scene.

Yeah how's that dumbing it down? Is is not normal for someone to call their mother "mom" instead of their first name? Come on...

It's dumb for Superman to call his mother "Mom" in this situation because he doesn't know that Batman knows who is mother is, and Batman didn't. So, by saying the name Martha (he probably would have said more, like "Kent," if Batman had allowed it) he helps Bruce find his mother. Also, Clark knows from listening in during the library event that Bruce is Batman; thus he knows that Bruce's mother is named Martha, too. Perhaps Superman also says "Martha" because he is smart enough to realize it could have an effect on Bruce.

 

[TheVileOne]

I'm not sure if this would've done much better at the box office and with critics if it was released in theaters.

In truth the Ultimate Cut doesn't fix all the movie's problems. It does some of the cohesion, incoherence and disjointed editing problems that plagued the theatrical cut.

At the same time, there's still too much going on in the movie. Because WB DCEU tried to push toward Justice League so fast. So we have all in one movie that needs to introduce Wonder Woman, metahumans and future Justice League, Doomsday, Lex Luthor, and the new Batman/Bruce Wayne.

They needed to make a separate Batman movie first to set this film up, at the very least.

While I like Wonder Woman in this film, I don't think she should've been in it. Frankly, I don't think Doomsday should've been in it either.

Why is that a problem? Because now you have dozens of characters and subplots that need to be established. So now you need THREE HOURS to tell a coherent superhero story. Audiences don't want to go and see a three-hour R-rated superhero movie. Guess what guys, audiences didn't like Watchmen that much.

What works about the Ultimate Cut is that it does make a lot of what happened in the movie make more sense for the most part. But it doesn't plug up all the plot holes.

I don't agree with Umberto that it cost the film $150 million off the top. But maybe it wouldn't have been 33 percent or however low on Rotten Tomatoes.

I think a lot of people still would've been put off by how dark and grim and violent the movie is. Also, Eisenberg's questionable performance as Lex Luthor, and some of Snyder's odd choices and doubling down on this idea of "you don't get it, I'm trying to grow up our superheroes."

 

[Da-Scribe]

I actually would've liked it if Superman had intentionally said Martha to get through to Bruce. Would've been a good character moment for Big Blue.

 

[TheVileOne]

The writers and Zack Snyder probably thought they had a brilliant breakthrough and lightbulb moment when they realized this. Like suddenly the whole movie opens up when they realized..."Wait a minute...both Batman and Superman's moms have the same first name! That's what ties them together!"