BvS The BvS Ultimate Cut Thread - Part 2

[misslane38]

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.

Well, as far as I can tell there isn't anything in the film that contradicts that reading; so it can be considered canon or at the very least a valid headcanon. I don't think the film has to include in the script a sort of breaking the fourth wall moment where Superman basically explains why he did what he did to assume that it was part of his thought process. If you prefer that interpretation, and the film doesn't disqualify it as a possibility, why choose a lesser reading when the superior one and the one you prefer is equally valid?

 

[Da-Scribe]

Lol, I think it was pretty obvious. It came up on these boards a few times when the movie was still filming. I think it's just an obvious thing when you know for fact that both Martha's will be in the film. I definitely think there are better ways it could've been addressed, but it was something I was hoping to see them play around with. Overall, I was satisfied with it.

Well, as far as I can tell there isn't anything in the film that contradicts that reading; so it can be considered canon or at the very least a valid headcanon. I don't think the film has to include in the script a sort of breaking the fourth wall moment where Superman basically explains why he did what he did to assume that it was part of his thought process. If you prefer that interpretation, and the film doesn't disqualify it as a possibility, why choose a lesser reading when the superior one and the one you prefer is equally valid?

True, that is how interpretation works after all.

 

[misslane38]

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!"

And then they went beyond that superficial bit of trivia to exploit it in a scene and narrative that gave it greater depth.

 

[TheVileOne]

And then they went beyond that superficial bit of trivia to exploit it in a scene and narrative that gave it greater depth.

Except it became the movie's achilles heel, which I doubt they envisioned.

 

[NeoRanger]

See above.

Yeah, that didn't answer my question. Superman is inwardly pursuing his desire before the moment on the mountain, while he's acting in conflict with his own nature. He saves people, but only as a reactionary, carrying on someone else's will. On the mountain he makes the choice to return and be who he wants to be, in conflict with the expectations of others of him.

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

Yes, relatively easily so too. I think I've mentioned it before, but I expect the fanedits to be the true "definitive version" of this movie. Though faneditors can be a little overzealous with their art....

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.

Same. And all it would've needed would be another trip to Gotham and some extra detective work. After the party, Clark pretty much knows that Batman is Bruce Wayne. Just show a shot, a single shot of Clark reading through the Gotham Gazette's article on the murder of Dr. Thomas and MARTHA Wayne.

I'm actually very disappointed they didn't do this.

 

[Whatupman]

Yeah, that didn't answer my question. Superman is inwardly pursuing his desire before the moment on the mountain, because he's acting in conflict with his own nature. He saves people, but only as a reactionary, carrying on someone else's will. On the mountain he makes the choice to return and be who he wants to be, in conflict with the expectations of others of him.

You didn't ask a question. But what does he do on the mountain? You said it yourself, he has a conversation with himself. He's still outwardly inactive while pursuing desire inwardly, in conflict with aspects of his own nature. Meaning that he's passive. You could make the case that when he returns to Metropolis that he's an active character.

 

[misslane38]

Except it became the movie's achilles heel, which I doubt they envisioned.

Nah. That's like blaming The Revenant for having Leo's character get attacked by a bear. If one makes films based on anticipating what people are going to joke about or make memes about, then that's silly and a road to ruin.

Same. And all it would've needed would be another trip to Gotham and some extra detective work. After the party, Clark pretty much knows that Batman is Bruce Wayne. Just show a shot, a single shot of Clark reading through the Gotham Gazette's article on the murder of Dr. Thomas and MARTHA Wayne.

I'm actually very disappointed they didn't do this.

That's silly. Despite not recognizing Bruce at the party, Clark could easily have known the name Bruce Wayne and his background considering he's famous and likely has been in the news. It doesn't have to be spelled out for one to assume that Clark may have known that Bruce's mother's name was Martha before they fought.

 

[Swamp Spectre]

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

That's exactly how I read it when I first saw the film. When Batman referenced Superman's parents he was taunting him, and likely thinking something like, "if it wasn't for this jerk alien's jerk alien parents, we wouldn't be in this mess". Not to mention that now that Zod and his goons are gone, Superman is the last existing Kryptonian in the universe as far as he and Planet Earth are concerned, so Bruce must assume that the jerk alien parents, who filled their jerk alien son's head with nonsense, are long gone.

To then have Lois get in his face, screaming that Superman's mother is "Martha", a human name, he had a harsh reality check. The harshest wake up of all is obviously the fact that this human woman is willing to throw herself on top of the alien that she obviously knows personally, and deeply cares about. Bruce would have had to be entirely off the deep end to have Lois looking him in the eyes and still say, "sorry toots", and drive the spear into his heart.

I think Lois's presence was the biggest blow of all to Batman's insane power trip.

 

[NeoRanger]

You didn't ask a question.

No, but it sounded like a cooler response in my head

But what does he do on the mountain? You said it yourself, he has a conversation with himself. He's still outwardly inactive while pursuing desire inwardly, in conflict with aspects of his own nature. Meaning that he's passive. You could make the case that when he returns to Metropolis that he's an active character.

That works if you view the scene in isolation, but given the context I don't see it. If he was being passive and reactionary before, even his choice to leave against everyone's wishes and search for an answer that is suited to his nature and against the expectations of others makes him an active participant in his development.

I mean, at this point, aren't you essentially arguing that he would've been active if he had made the exact same choice while he was still in Metropolis and the problem was that there was this quiet scene in the middle?

That's silly. Despite not recognizing Bruce at the party, Clark could easily have known the name Bruce Wayne and his background considering he's famous and likely has been in the news. It doesn't have to be spelled out for one to assume that Clark may have known that Bruce's mother's name was Martha before they fought.

There is "not spelling out" and then there is "breaking basic narrative flow in the vain hope the audience will be kind enough to do our job for us".

What I suggested isn't 'spelling out', it's connecting two points in the movie, which is pretty much necessary in storytelling.

 

[misslane38]

You didn't ask a question. But what does he do on the mountain? You said it yourself, he has a conversation with himself. He's still outwardly inactive while pursuing desire inwardly, in conflict with aspects of his own nature. Meaning that he's passive. You could make the case that when he returns to Metropolis that he's an active character.

Clark, like all human beings, can alternate between being passive and active. That's what makes him a real and complex character. Being passive is still a characterization, a personality; however Clark isn't passive at all times. You admit yourself that his active decision to seek out enlightenment through seclusion and introspection leads to an active choice to return to Metropolis.

He is goal-oriented. He has seen that his previous active behavior as Superman on the stage of the world has been received in a more controversial and cynical way that has had some tragic consequences. He chooses to step away from that stage to consider his feelings and his next move and ultimately chooses to return. Again, throughout he is in active pursuit of personal enlightenment and the greater good (Superman's effect on the world as a source of good).

Thus, throughout the process of choosing to be contemplative as a means of figuring out his next step to taking that next step, Clark is exhibiting his personality in a dynamic way that reflects his humanity and his complexity.

 

[misslane38]

There is "not spelling out" and then there is "breaking basic narrative flow in the vain hope the audience will be kind enough to do our job for us".

What I suggested isn't 'spelling out', it's connecting two points in the movie, which is pretty much necessary in storytelling.

It's unnecessary and superfluous. Once Clark knows who Bruce is and that Bruce is Batman, it's a given that he'd know who is mother is. This is all beside the fact that we were just talking about how it would simply enhance the scene to have Superman's decision to say his mother's name come from a recognition of the commonality. It isn't actually needed for the scene to work.

 

[NeoRanger]

It's unnecessary and superfluous. Once Clark knows who Bruce is and that Bruce is Batman, it's a given that he'd know who is mother is.

No, that is absolutely not a given. View it from a general audience perspective; how is it given for them? Why do they have to draw this conclusion? There is nothing in this movie to suggest they should.

This is all beside the fact that we were just talking about how it would simply enhance the scene to have Superman's decision to say his mother's name come from a recognition of the commonality. It isn't actually needed for the scene to work.

The post I was responding to and the argument I was also making was on the notion that Superman manipulated Batman by saying "Martha" instead of practically anything else that would've made the scene work better. If we have to just isolate this scene and fix it, yes, what I'm saying isn't necessary. It's a lot messier, though.

 

[Whatupman]

No, but it sounded like a cooler response in my head

Hah, fair enough.

That works if you view the scene in isolation, but given the context I don't see it. If he was being passive and reactionary before, even his choice to leave against everyone's wishes and search for an answer that is suited to his nature and against the expectations of others makes him an active participant in his development.

I mean, at this point, aren't you essentially arguing that he would've been active if he had made the exact same choice while he was still in Metropolis and the problem was that there was this quiet scene in the middle?

But where does he go for his answer and find it? It's inside himself. The fact that he went to a mountain is in fact meaningless. The development happens inside, so he could have been anywhere. Don't you agree that in that scene he's outwardly inactive while pursuing desire inwardly, in conflict with aspects of his own nature? The vision of his father that changes him comes from within, does it not? He's having a conversation with himself, how more inwardly can you get? I'm not saying that he isn't active in scenes before and after this scene, but in this particular scene, he is passive.

Clark, like all human beings, can alternate between being passive and active. That's what makes him a real and complex character. Being passive is still a characterization, a personality; however Clark isn't passive at all times. You admit yourself that his active decision to seek out enlightenment through seclusion and introspection leads to an active choice to return to Metropolis.

He is goal-oriented. He has seen that his previous active behavior as Superman on the stage of the world has been received in a more controversial and cynical way that has had some tragic consequences. He chooses to step away from that stage to consider his feelings and his next move and ultimately chooses to return. Again, throughout he is in active pursuit of personal enlightenment and the greater good (Superman's effect on the world as a source of good).

Thus, throughout the process of choosing to be contemplative as a means of figuring out his next step to taking that next step, Clark is exhibiting his personality in a dynamic way that reflects his humanity and his complexity.

I never said that Clark is passive at all times. As a matter of fact, I said that he was an active character overall, but in that moment on the mountain, where his character develops, he's passive.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I don't really know that it can be argued that the mountain scene wasn't passive. I get that him going there was an active measure, but the event in itself, the vision, that seemed passive to me. I'm cool with it, because I think it plays into some of the larger themes and overall structure of the film. But, yeah, I'd certainly agree that it was passive development.

 

[misslane38]

I don't really know that it can be argued that the mountain scene wasn't passive. I get that him going there was an active measure, but the event in itself, the vision, that seemed passive to me. I'm cool with it, because I think it plays into some of the larger themes and overall structure of the film. But, yeah, I'd certainly agree that it was passive development.

To be active in character terms means being goal-oriented. Clark was there pursuing a goal. One is still active if attending a class or support group meeting to enhance education or mental health. To be truly passive is to do nothing in the pursuit of nothing. Clark doesn't reduce to "passive" character, as a result. Yet, if he had, that wouldn't mean his character deserved to be labelled as lacking substance or depth or to be considered passive overall. It doesn't tarnish the scene or make it pointless either.

 

[matt47]

Except he knew who he was before that, as we saw by Lex requesting Clark to report from the party, along with inviting Bruce.

This is why I think it's weird they put the scene of him entering the scout ship so late in the movie. He's wearing the same clothes as he did when he went to it the first time.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I watched it. Not much from Batman's story was cut, but they totally gutted Superman's. Superman's side of the story makes 100% more sense in this version, makes the film much more even than the theatrical is, and just is all around a million times better.

 

[Parquagh]

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.

 

[Micromind]

That's exactly how I read it when I first saw the film. When Batman referenced Superman's parents he was taunting him, and likely thinking something like, "if it wasn't for this jerk alien's jerk alien parents, we wouldn't be in this mess". Not to mention that now that Zod and his goons are gone, Superman is the last existing Kryptonian in the universe as far as he and Planet Earth are concerned, so Bruce must assume that the jerk alien parents, who filled their jerk alien son's head with nonsense, are long gone.

To then have Lois get in his face, screaming that Superman's mother is "Martha", a human name, he had a harsh reality check. The harshest wake up of all is obviously the fact that this human woman is willing to throw herself on top of the alien that she obviously knows personally, and deeply cares about. Bruce would have had to be entirely off the deep end to have Lois looking him in the eyes and still say, "sorry toots", and drive the spear into his heart.

I think Lois's presence was the biggest blow of all to Batman's insane power trip.

Well said.

 

[Micromind]

I watched it. Not much from Batman's story was cut, but they totally gutted Superman's. Superman's side of the story makes 100% more sense in this version, makes the film much more even than the theatrical is, and just is all around a million times better.

Agreed with everything you said.

 

[Whatupman]

I don't really know that it can be argued that the mountain scene wasn't passive. I get that him going there was an active measure, but the event in itself, the vision, that seemed passive to me. I'm cool with it, because I think it plays into some of the larger themes and overall structure of the film. But, yeah, I'd certainly agree that it was passive development.

Exactly.

To be active in character terms means being goal-oriented. Clark was there pursuing a goal. One is still active if attending a class or support group meeting to enhance education or mental health. To be truly passive is to do nothing in the pursuit of nothing. Clark doesn't reduce to "passive" character, as a result. Yet, if he had, that wouldn't mean his character deserved to be labelled as lacking substance or depth or to be considered passive overall. It doesn't tarnish the scene or make it pointless either.

No, that's not what being an active character means at all, even if it's a part of being an active character. A passive character can be goal-oriented too, but he goes inwardly to pursue his desire, in conflict with aspects with his own nature, exactly like Clark did on that scene on the mountain. The thing is, there's two different versions of passive characters: 1. The passive character that I just described, which fits with Clark in this scene, and is a character that you often find in Miniplots. 2. A truly passive character that doesn't want anything, who cannot make descions, whose actions effect no change at any level.

 

[AnneFan]

I watched it. Not much from Batman's story was cut, but they totally gutted Superman's. Superman's side of the story makes 100% more sense in this version, makes the film much more even than the theatrical is, and just is all around a million times better.

Nah man. The UC just has superficial changes.

#sarcastic

 

[Corysxj88]

For those of you who are pre ordering the hard copy of the Ultimate Cut, where are you ordering it from? and how can I make sure I get it on or before the 19th?

 

[gdw]

Well, as far as I can tell there isn't anything in the film that contradicts that reading; so it can be considered canon or at the very least a valid headcanon. I don't think the film has to include in the script a sort of breaking the fourth wall moment where Superman basically explains why he did what he did to assume that it was part of his thought process. If you prefer that interpretation, and the film doesn't disqualify it as a possibility, why choose a lesser reading when the superior one and the one you prefer is equally valid?

Because we shouldn't have to stretch for rationalization in a film.

 

[gdw]

And then they went beyond that superficial bit of trivia to exploit it in a scene and narrative that gave it greater depth.