BvS The BvS Ultimate Cut Thread - Part 2

[TeeKay]

In my opinion, a few people watched the film and spoiled the "Martha" bit before others had a chance to see it. By the time most people saw the film, the "Martha" moment had already become a meme. So now we're dealing with prospective audience members who are going to watch the film with ideas already in their head about what to expect. The audience sees what it wants to see, what it expects to see, regardless of whether it is there or not.

Oh please. Based on what exactly? For example, The Hail Hydra thing was a meme before Cap 2 opened everywhere yet it didnt ruin any expectations. It's nothing to do with memes here but rather how poorly the moment was executed in the film. You're literally grasping at straws at this point. Wow.

 

[gdw]

Yes, that is what happened in that scene. I have never said that the name "Martha" alone is the thing that stopped Batman from killing Superman. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anyone say that. What I have said, and what I have seen a lot of people say, is that Batman decides to not kill Superman because he finds out that Superman's and his mother share the same name. And all that is in the scene, contrary to what you say. You can go on and blame the audience all you want and believe that it's a conspiracy. Your call.

. . .

"I have never said that the name "Martha" alone is the thing that stopped Batman from killing Superman. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anyone say that. What I have said, and what I have seen a lot of people say, is that Batman decides to not kill Superman because he finds out that Superman's and his mother share the same name."

That's EXACTLY what he's referring to, people saying exactly what you just said. Reducing it to 'he stopped because their mom's have the same name.'

It's the reduction of the moment to this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q76H7tP7Ig

Which is the most blatant misrepresentation possible.

 

[gdw]

Oh please. Based on what exactly? For example, The Hail Hydra thing was a meme before Cap 2 opened everywhere yet it didnt ruin any expectations. It's nothing to do with memes here but rather how poorly the moment was executed in the film. You're literally grasping at straws at this point. Wow.

Difference is that "Hail Hydra" was not being reduced to a childish mischaracterization of the film.

*edit* Not that I think that the fact that people had seen, and spoiled, the Martha moment is the root of all of this.
I do believe it had an effect, as I have witnessed it plenty. MANY people cited the moment, and mocked it, without ever having seen the film. However, that would have happened regardless of when people started talking about it.

 

[misslane38]

I don't why you keep on ignoring the fact that I have said, several times now, that I don't consider Clark to OVERALL be a passive character. It's funny that you say that an active character can be passive, when I have said the same thing myself. You even said yourself that Clark engaged in passive activity, which is what I said. So you agree with me ...?

You have repeatedly called Clark a passive character AND an active character. A character CANNOT be both. An active character can sometimes behave passively, and a passive character can sometimes behave actively, but what earns either character type its label as "active" or "passive" depends on the full scope of that character's characterization within the narrative. What you have said is that an active character became a passive character, which is a very different thing than saying that an active character engaged in a passive activity. You implied that engaging in one passive activity shifted the nature of the character itself. In other words, you claimed that when Clark thought of his father's story about the Smallville flood, he became a passive character. Was he doing something passive? Yes, one passive activity does not alter the nature of a character.

And no, when I was discussing his character development in that mountain scene, I said that he was passive and that the character development was rushed. And character development and character depth goes hand in hand, don't you think?

You have yet to explain how Clark's passivity in the scene led to the character's lack of depth. You have not explained how the character development was rushed. You have placed Clark in an unwinnable position. Since you find passivity unengaging and lacking personality, then your preference for the character would be constant activity. But if the character is in a position in which he must make a decision, then he must consider this decision. What, then, would you have him do? Spend more time in passive contemplation or should he act?

The scene on the mountain develops Clark's character by building on his characterization in Man of Steel. In that film, when Clark was uncertain about how the world would accept someone like him, he spent time traveling the world. Jonathan Kent loomed large in Clark's upbringing as the parent who had the most influence on his son's perceptions about the world's ability to embrace someone special like him. The fact that Clark returns to these behaviors and memories in his darkest moments is revealing of his character. We learn about the sort of man Superman is by seeing that his response to grief and public criticism is to consider the pros/cons of continuing his mission. Not every person, especially a person with so much power, would be so willing to give it up.

My frustration with you is rooted in what seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes character development. You seem to think a character can only be developed when that character is active. That character development only happens when a character is making choices that make things happen. It doesn't seem to occur to you that an active character choosing to engage in a passive activity before making another active choice can develop character. What a character does when he's being passive, or how he thinks when he's being passive, doesn't seem to merit consideration either. For you, character development and personality evaporates when a character is not in a constant state of action.

And no, for me, it doesn't make Superman a richer and more interesting character to know that in his darkest moments, he is able to, and most comfortable recalling, the wisdom of his dead human father. We had already seen that Clark had a connection to Jonathan, so that scene didn't turn Clark into a richer and more interesting character.

Of course we already know Clark has a connection with his father. It's how and when he relies on his father that is enriching. It's what particular aspects of his father that Clark brings forth in this moment that tells us something about him. It matters that Clark thinks of Jonathan rather than Jor-El. It matters that Clark thinks of a story that reminds him how much it helps to lean on the woman you love. It matters that the story on Clark's mind is about the unintended consequences of positive action. You're only responding to the scene on its most basic level without even scratching the surface of what information the scene provides about Clark and the way he thinks.

And scenes like the one on top of the mountain does not make me reconsider thinking that Clark only feels like a chess piece by the writer. Actually, that scene only reinforces it, because the character development is so rushed and so unnatural, that it feels like the writer had to get the character to that place in a short amount of time.

It's unnatural? How is it unnatural to think of the advice of one's beloved father in a time of stress and difficulty? What is unnatural about finding hope and strength in love? The character was in a state of grief and indecision, and he takes a break to think and consider his next move. Clark finds strength and renewed purpose in his loved ones. His memories remind him that hope can be found in the ones you love, and Lois believed that Superman could still give people hope. Clark returns to Metropolis to the woman he believes is his "world" because as long as he has her, then he can cope with the nightmares and the guilt. How much time is enough time to not rush a man finding strength in love? Would you have tolerated more time spent with Clark in a passive state of indecision just to make it "feel" like enough?

And no, I don't think that a character only can have an entertaining and engaging personality if that character is active at all times.

Nothing you have said has convinced me this is true. If an active character temporarily engaging in passive thought wasn't a problem for you, then it is a mystery why the question of active vs. passive was even brought into our discussion of the Jonathan scene.

 

[Whatupman]

"I have never said that the name "Martha" alone is the thing that stopped Batman from killing Superman. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anyone say that. What I have said, and what I have seen a lot of people say, is that Batman decides to not kill Superman because he finds out that Superman's and his mother share the same name."

That's EXACTLY what he's referring to, people saying exactly what you just said. Reducing it to 'he stopped because their mom's have the same name.'

It's the reduction of the moment to this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q76H7tP7Ig

Which is the most blatant misrepresentation possible.

Here's the thing, that's your interpretation of the scene. Other people are going to have other interpretations of the scene. And if a large part of the audience read the scene wrong, that means that the writer and director didn't do their job. I studied screenwriting for movies and television for three years, and they teach you right away that you have to make sure that your characters motivations are as clear as they can be. And they surely don't teach you to blame the audience if they don't understand the characters motivations.

 

[misslane38]

Difference is that "Hail Hydra" was not being reduced to a childish mischaracterization of the film.

*edit* Not that I think that the fact that people had seen, and spoiled, the Martha moment is the root of all of this.
I do believe it had an effect, as I have witnessed it plenty. MANY people cited the moment, and mocked it, without ever having seen the film. However, that would have happened regardless of when people started talking about it.

You don't know that. Even then, as I've noted before, people have made fun of Leonardo DiCaprio's character from The Revenant being attacked by a bear without it meaning that the attack was poor storytelling. I think sometimes it's visceral and intense moments that cause people to use humor and simplification to deal with their feelings and reactions. Seeing someone as macho and iconic as Batman soften at the sound of his mother's name and the sight of a couple in love seems to be one of those moments.

It's fascinating to me because the film itself explores the contrast between brutality and vulnerability. For example, Senator June Finch repeatedly emphasizes that conversation is the key to democracy, and she denies Luthor's attempts to acquire a deadly weapon as a means of deterrence. Furthermore, while Batman froths with paranoia and rage, and Jonathan's memory reminds Clark of haunting nightmares, both Bruce (by Alfred) and Clark (by Jonathan) are reminded to look to relationships for ballast: Alfred encourages Bruce to find a mate and start a family while Jonathan encourages Clark to embrace the light and hope the woman he loves offers him. Even Doomsday, who has always been a very symbolically rich villain, is representative of that famous quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar,
but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.​

In short, I don't think the reactions to the Martha scene should be taken so literally as reflecting the quality of the scene itself.

 

[gdw]

Here's the thing, that's your interpretation of the scene. Other people are going to have other interpretations of the scene. And if a large part of the audience read the scene wrong, that means that the writer and director didn't do their job. I studied screenwriting for movies and television for three years, and they teach you right away that you have to make sure that your characters motivations are as clear as they can be. And they surely don't teach you to blame the audience if they don't understand the characters motivations.

First, no where in that post did I say ANYTHING about my "interpretation" of the scene.

Second, a vocal contingent does not mean a "large part of the audience."

Third, congratulations on studying "screenwriting for movies and television for three years," I've been WORKING in film (as an editor/animator) for 6 years. Are we done measuring *****?

Now, are you honestly telling me that, in that scene, Superman is NOT being humanized in Bruce's eyes (after dehumanizing him the entire film,) and Bruce is NOT seeing how he was turning into the same monster that took his parents?
Are you actually actively denying this?

 

[misslane38]

Here's the thing, that's your interpretation of the scene. Other people are going to have other interpretations of the scene. And if a large part of the audience read the scene wrong, that means that the writer and director didn't do their job. I studied screenwriting for movies and television for three years, and they teach you right away that you have to make sure that your characters motivations are as clear as they can be. And they surely don't teach you to blame the audience if they don't understand the characters motivations.

The character motivations ARE clear. Batman heard Superman say, "Martha," and he became MORE agitated. WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME? Batman doesn't hear Superman say, "Martha," and then immediately offers Superman a hand before asking his new friend what he can do for him. Batman doesn't stand down until Lois explains, "It's his mother's name." I do not know what could have been done to make it more clear that it was the fact that "Martha" was Superman's mother that made the difference. If you and the audience didn't understand that, then it really is all on you.

 

[gdw]

You don't know that. Even then, as I've noted before, people have made fun of Leonardo DiCaprio's character from The Revenant being attacked by a bear without it meaning that the attack was poor storytelling. I think sometimes it's visceral and intense moments that cause people to use humor and simplification to deal with their feelings and reactions. Seeing someone as macho and iconic as Batman soften at the sound of his mother's name and the sight of a couple in love seems to be one of those moments.

It's fascinating to me because the film itself explores the contrast between brutality and vulnerability. For example, Senator June Finch repeatedly emphasizes that conversation is the key to democracy, and she denies Luthor's attempts to acquire a deadly weapon as a means of deterrence. Furthermore, while Batman froths with paranoia and rage, and Jonathan's memory reminds Clark of haunting nightmares, both Bruce (by Alfred) and Clark (by Jonathan) are reminded to look to relationships for ballast: Alfred encourages Bruce to find a mate and start a family while Jonathan encourages Clark to embrace the light and hope the woman he loves offers him. Even Doomsday, who has always been a very symbolically rich villain, is representative of that famous quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar,
but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.​

In short, I don't think the reactions to the Martha scene should be taken so literally as reflecting the quality of the scene itself.

I do not believe you are addressing the correct person, or even the line you bolded in my quote.

None of what you wrote addressed the fact that people would have (and did, as not everyone heard about it before seeing the film, so yes, I CAN know that) criticize the moment, regardless of whether or not they read early reviews mocking it.

Also, while I DO think there were execution problems with the moment in question (It's the most overly heavy handed moment in the film,) I have no problem with it from a story/script point, nor, ultimately, despite my minor criticisms, with it in the film.

 

[gdw]

The character motivations ARE clear. Batman heard Superman say, "Martha," and he became MORE agitated. WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME? Batman doesn't hear Superman say, "Martha," and then immediately offers Superman a hand before asking his new friend what he can do for him. Batman doesn't stand down until Lois explains, "It's his mother's name." I do not know what could have been done to make it more clear that it was the fact that "Martha" was Superman's mother that made the difference. If you and the audience didn't understand that, then it really is all on you.

Um, he DID understand that. Everyone understood that. No one has said that JUST hearing "Martha" was what changed Bruce's mind.

The problem is that people are reducing it to JUST 'it's his mother's name too.'

 

[Da-Scribe]

I'm having such a hard time figuring out who is arguing with who and about what.

 

[TeeKay]

First, no where in that post did I say ANYTHING about my "interpretation" of the scene.

Second, a vocal contingent does not mean a "large part of the audience."

Third, congratulations on studying "screenwriting for movies and television for three years," I've been WORKING in film (as an editor/animator) for 6 years. Are we done measuring *****?

Now, are you honestly telling me that, in that scene, Superman is NOT being humanized in Bruce's eyes (after dehumanizing him the entire film,) and Bruce is NOT seeing how he was turning into the same monster that took his parents?
Are you actually actively denying this?

You totally missed his point.

Here's the thing, that's your interpretation of the scene. Other people are going to have other interpretations of the scene. And if a large part of the audience read the scene wrong, that means that the writer and director didn't do their job. I studied screenwriting for movies and television for three years, and they teach you right away that you have to make sure that your characters motivations are as clear as they can be. And they surely don't teach you to blame the audience if they don't understand the characters motivations.

Thank you.

Difference is that "Hail Hydra" was not being reduced to a childish mischaracterization of the film.

*edit* Not that I think that the fact that people had seen, and spoiled, the Martha moment is the root of all of this.
I do believe it had an effect, as I have witnessed it plenty. MANY people cited the moment, and mocked it, without ever having seen the film. However, that would have happened regardless of when people started talking about it.

Even if that's the case, the film still presented the moment poorly, hence why it's so divided and being mocked.

 

[Predator jp]

I'm having such a hard time figuring out who is arguing with who and about what.

at least they seem like they're having fun so it's all good.

 

[NeoRanger]

Imo it's not really a good thing. It highlights just how poorly the movie was made on a story level. Snyder ultimately failed to tell a story that resonated with the majority. Poorly written scripts tends to spark conversation. The difference between this and movies like F4, is potential. The blue print for a great story is there both in MoS and BvS. However, Snyder is not a good storyteller. He can't keep making these type of desicive films. For me BvS was the final straw. I'll not be seeing JL in theatres.

I kinda take issue with this; for one thing, why can't he keep making these divisive (I assume you meant) films? It's bad for business when he's handed properties like this one, but that's WB's problem, not ours.

For another, I see a lot of conflation between Terrio (also Goyer) and Snyder in this thread. Snyder was part of the process of doing the story, but he didn't write the script. I'm not actually defending Snyder here, because I'd argue the primary problems with the result are on Snyder (well, on WB first and foremost, but then on Snyder). I'm not comfortable with the script and its writer being slammed because of Snyder's failures.

Also, it's a bit of confirmation bias saying that poorly written scripts generate controversy. A lot of things can generate controversy. We saw this even in Man of Steel; a film that was broken on a fundamental level (ironically because of the script) and the controversy came primarily from the presentation. Even back in '06, Superman Returns generated controversy not because of but despite its quality as a movie. I don't like Returns, but despite a few minor flaws, I would be extremely hard-pressed to call it poor in any way.

In any case, what I see as I'm reading through these posts is a divide on how people perceive the movie; some perceive it on a scene-by-scene basis, because a bunch of them stood out as poorly-executed. Some perceive the movie as a whole, being able to overlook the flaws of isolated scenes. There is truth in both cases; there are undeniable flaws in plotting and execution and some scenes just fall flat. But there's also strong character drama (for Superman, in particular, who has a complete arc that goes back to Man of Steel) and some very interesting themes the film tackles.

 

[Flint Marko]

But there's also strong character drama (for Superman, in particular, who has a complete arc that goes back to Man of Steel) and some very interesting themes the film tackles.

Couldn't disagree more, he's the most mishandled character in the DCEU thus far.

 

[kguillou]

Question for you guys, something I've been thinking about lately. Do you guys feel the fight was too...one sided? Like it was just Batman beating on Superman the whole time? Even though the fight was beautifully lit and choreographed (except for that awkward rope throw at the end) I felt like Superman didn't really get the chance to counter attack and we didn't get a real brawl between the two. But then, I guess, how do you have someone as powerful as superman plausibly attack Batman without trying to destroy him?

What are your guys' thoughts?

 

[NeoRanger]

Couldn't disagree more, he's the most mishandled character in the DCEU thus far.

That's vague. Define 'mishandled'. He's the hero of two movies so far and he's the only one who gets organic character development through Batman v Superman. If you think that this isn't how Superman should be portrayed okay, but it's irrelevant to my point.

 

[NeoRanger]

Question for you guys, something I've been thinking about lately. Do you guys feel the fight was too...one sided? Like it was just Batman beating on Superman the whole time? Even though the fight was beautifully lit and choreographed (except for that awkward rope throw at the end) I felt like Superman didn't really get the chance to counter attack and we didn't get a real brawl between the two. But then, I guess, how do you have someone as powerful as superman plausibly attack Batman without trying to destroy him?

What are your guys' thoughts?

There was no fight. Superman shoves Batman through some walls, he inhales Kryptonite, they tumble down in what I assume to have once been the police station, he regains his strength, he gets another Kryptonite round in the face and then Batman just wails on him, while the guy can't even move. Calling it a 'fight' is a bit too generous, honestly, especially after the fights in Man of Steel.

 

[Whatupman]

You have repeatedly called Clark a passive character AND an active character. A character CANNOT be both. An active character can sometimes behave passively, and a passive character can sometimes behave actively, but what earns either character type its label as "active" or "passive" depends on the full scope of that character's characterization within the narrative. What you have said is that an active character became a passive character, which is a very different thing than saying that an active character engaged in a passive activity. You implied that engaging in one passive activity shifted the nature of the character itself. In other words, you claimed that when Clark thought of his father's story about the Smallville flood, he became a passive character. Was he doing something passive? Yes, one passive activity does not alter the nature of a character.

I can understand where your confusion is coming from. I said one time many pages ago that that mountain scene turned an active character into a passive. I meant that in that scene, Clark become passive, not that it overall turned him into a passive character. And since I said that, I have several times said that I didn't consider Clark/Superman to overall be a passive character, so I don't know why you would still be confused. And you have yourself said that a character can both be active and passive. I quote:

An active character can, at times, be passive.

Is that really different from when I say that an active character was passive in one scene?

You have yet to explain how Clark's passivity in the scene led to the character's lack of depth. You have not explained how the character development was rushed. You have placed Clark in an unwinnable position. Since you find passivity unengaging and lacking personality, then your preference for the character would be constant activity. But if the character is in a position in which he must make a decision, then he must consider this decision. What, then, would you have him do? Spend more time in passive contemplation or should he act?

It's rushed because it's big character development that doesn't develop, it just happens. One scene where the character is passive and the character isn't at risk. Everything in that scene comes so easy for Clark, and character development shouldn't come easy. I would have Clark be more active, yes, and make him change through the power of antagonistic force, where the pressure is stronger. For me, that scene lacked the pressure a big character moment needs. Because true character is revealed in the choices a character does when he's under pressure, and the greater the pressure, the deeper the revelation.

The scene on the mountain develops Clark's character by building on his characterization in Man of Steel. In that film, when Clark was uncertain about how the world would accept someone like him, he spent time traveling the world. Jonathan Kent loomed large in Clark's upbringing as the parent who had the most influence on his son's perceptions about the world's ability to embrace someone special like him. The fact that Clark returns to these behaviors and memories in his darkest moments is revealing of his character. We learn about the sort of man Superman is by seeing that his response to grief and public criticism is to consider the pros/cons of continuing his mission. Not every person, especially a person with so much power, would be so willing to give it up.

That scene doesn't reveal anything new about his character for me. I you thought so, good for you.

My frustration with you is rooted in what seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes character development. You seem to think a character can only be developed when that character is active. That character development only happens when a character is making choices that make things happen. It doesn't seem to occur to you that an active character choosing to engage in a passive activity before making another active choice can develop character. What a character does when he's being passive, or how he thinks when he's being passive, doesn't seem to merit consideration either. For you, character development and personality evaporates when a character is not in a constant state of action.

I frustrate you? I'm sorry, but we can say that in the middle of character development. I think that character development happens when a character is put under great pressure from antagonistic forces and the character's way of reaching his goal isn't working, he fails and have to change to achive his goal. And I think that when we're dealing with an Archplot and not a Miniplot, and the character is an active one, and not a passive one, then I think that the character development should mostly come from a place of action. Otherwise, the character stops being an active character and starts being a passive, does he not?

Of course we already know Clark has a connection with his father. It's how and when he relies on his father that is enriching. It's what particular aspects of his father that Clark brings forth in this moment that tells us something about him. It matters that Clark thinks of Jonathan rather than Jor-El. It matters that Clark thinks of a story that reminds him how much it helps to lean on the woman you love. It matters that the story on Clark's mind is about the unintended consequences of positive action. You're only responding to the scene on its most basic level without even scratching the surface of what information the scene provides about Clark and the way he thinks.

I don't find it enriching and revealing that the scene reminds Clark, and reminds me, how much it helps to lean on the woman you love. Because, as you said, it's a reminder, nothing new.

It's unnatural? How is it unnatural to think of the advice of one's beloved father in a time of stress and difficulty? What is unnatural about finding hope and strength in love? The character was in a state of grief and indecision, and he takes a break to think and consider his next move. Clark finds strength and renewed purpose in his loved ones. His memories remind him that hope can be found in the ones you love, and Lois believed that Superman could still give people hope. Clark returns to Metropolis to the woman he believes is his "world" because as long as he has her, then he can cope with the nightmares and the guilt. How much time is enough time to not rush a man finding strength in love? Would you have tolerated more time spent with Clark in a passive state of indecision just to make it "feel" like enough?

I feel like it's unnatural because it feels rushed. If you rush character development, than it will feel unnatural. It's that simple. Character development should be earned, so I defintely think that we should have spent more time on it. But with that, I don't mean a longer conversation with himself.

Nothing you have said has convinced me this is true. If an active character temporarily engaging in passive thought wasn't a problem for you, then it is a mystery why the question of active vs. passive was even brought into our discussion of the Jonathan scene.

My problem was the fact that an active character went through big character development when he was passive and didn't face a strong antagonistic force, and the character development was rushed.

 

[kguillou]

There was no fight. Superman shoves Batman through some walls, he inhales Kryptonite, they tumble down in what I assume to have once been the police station, he regains his strength, he gets another Kryptonite round in the face and then Batman just wails on him, while the guy can't even move. Calling it a 'fight' is a bit too generous, honestly, especially after the fights in Man of Steel.

I don't disagree and that's what kind of irks me. I wanted a "battle royal" like WB promised. But I guess its a double edged sword in that the moment Superman goes on the offensive its over and people would complain that he was trying to kill Batman. That begs the question of how do you properly stage a fight between these two and not have it seem like Superman is trying to kill this guy?

 

[Whatupman]

First, no where in that post did I say ANYTHING about my "interpretation" of the scene.

Second, a vocal contingent does not mean a "large part of the audience."

Third, congratulations on studying "screenwriting for movies and television for three years," I've been WORKING in film (as an editor/animator) for 6 years. Are we done measuring *****?

Now, are you honestly telling me that, in that scene, Superman is NOT being humanized in Bruce's eyes (after dehumanizing him the entire film,) and Bruce is NOT seeing how he was turning into the same monster that took his parents?
Are you actually actively denying this?

You said that my interpretation was the most blatant misrepresentation possible, so I assumed that your interpretation was different. Was I wrong to assume that?

Oh, I have been WORKING as a screenwriter too, but that wasn't part of the point.

 

[misslane38]

I do not believe you are addressing the correct person, or even the line you bolded in my quote.

Nope. I wanted to respond to you and to what you said.

None of what you wrote addressed the fact that people would have (and did, as not everyone heard about it before seeing the film, so yes, I CAN know that) criticize the moment, regardless of whether or not they read early reviews mocking it.

But you don't know that people would have mocked the moment regardless of it being spoiled. You cannot possibly know that. And that is exactly what my response to you said. I said, "You don't know that." Your "would have" is a phrase that implies that you are claiming something as an inevitability, but there is no way of confirming that suspicion of yours. It is not a fact. You cannot know that people would have mocked the "Martha" moment before seeing the film as a result of buzz beforehand. I'll indulge you, though, HOW do you know that people would have mocked it no matter what?

Also, while I DO think there were execution problems with the moment in question (It's the most overly heavy handed moment in the film,) I have no problem with it from a story/script point, nor, ultimately, despite my minor criticisms, with it in the film.

Okay.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I mean, I just feel like you guys aren't ever going to agree. Why not just call it and move on?

 

[misslane38]

Couldn't disagree more, he's the most mishandled character in the DCEU thus far.

How? Keep in mind we're talking about the Ultimate Cut in this thread, so the moments reintroduced to the film count in terms of characterization. Also keep in mind that there's a difference between characterization that is poor and characterization that you don't like.

 

[Whatupman]

I mean, I just feel like you guys aren't ever going to agree. Why not just call it and move on?

Yeah, you're right, it's just going in circles now, so we should just move on.