• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.
  • X/Twitter

    Due to recent news involving X, formerly Twitter and its owner, the staff of SuperHeroHype have decided it would be best to no longer allow links on the board. Starting January 31st, users will no longer be able to post direct links to X on this site, however screenshots will still be allowed as long as they follow Hype rules and guidelines.

    We apologize for any inconvenience.

BvS The BvS Ultimate Cut Thread - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, if the tone and characterizations were NOT your issues with the film, then the UE fixes EVERYTHING you listed.
This drove me nuts, as 'editing, pacing, illogical motivations,' were the vast majority of the complaints of the negative reviews.
If THIS was the version (or a tamer pg-13 version with all the story content retained) screened for reviewers, this film would have had a completely different reception.

Again, people who did not like the tone, or the way certain people were characterized (aside from motivations, as that's cleared up in the UE,) would still have the same criticisms; However everything else would have been a COMPLETELY different story.

i was fine with the tone. i like how DC films try to make the stakes more serious. i could've done without the desaturated cinematography (it sometimes felt like I was watching one of the Underworld movies, haha).

and i've come to accept the characterizations as something different from the mainstream or traditional versions of the comics -- this is more of an elseworlds sorta take to me. So I can enjoy it as that.
 
i was fine with the tone. i like how DC films try to make the stakes more serious. i could've done without the desaturated cinematography (it sometimes felt like I was watching one of the Underworld movies, haha).

and i've come to accept the characterizations as something different from the mainstream or traditional versions of the comics -- this is more of an elseworlds sorta take to me. So I can enjoy it as that.

Then you'll probably love the Ultimate Edition.
 
And frankly, he wanted to engage these guys and put them down. He wanted to let off some steam given his mood. He wanted to hunt, as Bruce Begins said above. It's the whole point.
Sure, then why not engage them hand-to-hand, like in the warehouse while he was rescuing Martha? His brutality was super obvious there. Unnecessarily wreaking that much havoc in the Batmobile just made him look like he didn't care at all about collateral damage, whether property or bystanders.

He'd probably feel better beating them with his fists, at any rate. :oldrazz:

But really, the Batmobile scene still didn't piss me off as the entirely unnecessary and downright frustrating BvS fight. The Batmobile scene was when I paid way more attention to my knitting than the movie, for a few minutes. :oldrazz:



In general, I think the UC shows that they didn't know whether they wanted to make a Batman movie or a Superman movie. They gave more time to Clark and Lois in the UC, and that story flow does feel better in general, but then Bruce feels like he's in there a little too much. But I can also understand the challenge they had - to make Bruce suspicious of Superman, but not so extreme that his redemption turn looks forced. That involves spending more time with him.

Actually, they could have made Bruce overly paranoid without making him quite so brutal. They spent too much time focusing on his brutality and his anger on everything in general, and I don't think it has much to do with his arc of coming to trust Superman's goodness. His arc, as written in BvS, should have been properly resolved by having one of the criminals he branded do something good. Then he could see that people could be redeemed.

His distrust of Superman could have naturally come from years of trusting people (Gotham PD, for example), and being burned each time. So he no longer trusts anyone besides him and Alfred, and wants to put Superman down. That's a different arc.

I just feel like we spent too much time on a Bruce Wayne arc that doesn't feel genuine, even beyond the quick turnaround.
 
In general, I think the UC shows that they didn't know whether they wanted to make a Batman movie or a Superman movie.

---

I just feel like we spent too much time on a Bruce Wayne arc that doesn't feel genuine, even beyond the quick turnaround.
Absolutely this. It seems like they started making a Superman movie, because that's the character they had established and could explore, but also shoved Batman in there because the suits had spoken. And when the time came to butcher the movie, nobody dared cut Batman out, so they cut out the character with the more rounded arc, making the theatrical cut a confusing mess.
 
I went into the movie unspoiled, didn't know about the Martha moment, and came out making fun of it.
 
gdw....misslane38.......it's over. Stop it. Move on to something else.
 
So instead of engaging with me or disagreeing with me respectfully, you're now going to insult me? Yeah, we're done. I asked to agree to disagree. You continued. Your response to my continuing that discussion was ad hominem attacks, proving that further discussion will be fruitless and undesirable. No more.

No, I was dismissive, because I'm refusing to engage this "discussion" with you after that post. You are flat out denying reality, because I'm not giving you the precise phrasing you want. You are twisting things to create disagreements where they don't even exist, and extrapolating to extremes, and absolutes, that simply do not apply.
 
I went into the movie unspoiled, didn't know about the Martha moment, and came out making fun of it.

How do I know that you're telling the truth? How did you make fun of it? Did you genuinely believe that the fight ended because their moms had the same name, meaning the script was confusing? Or did you make fun of it because of the way it was delivered or because of some other reason? Why and how did you make fun of it? What did you know about the film before you saw it? What are your biases? Did you like Man of Steel? Did you hear any of the Rotten Tomatoes scores before seeing it?

How do I know that your answers to my questions will be truthful and not twisted to make your point? Unless you have an objective record of what you did and knew before you saw it and after, your words are meaningless. Your anecdotal evidence is unreliable and thus irrelevant.
 
How do I know that you're telling the truth? How did you make fun of it? Did you genuinely believe that the fight ended because their moms had the same name, meaning the script was confusing? Or did you make fun of it because of the way it was delivered or because of some other reason? Why and how did you make fun of it? What did you know about the film before you saw it? What are your biases? Did you like Man of Steel? Did you hear any of the Rotten Tomatoes scores before seeing it?

How do I know that your answers to my questions will be truthful and not twisted to make your point? Unless you have an objective record of what you did and knew before you saw it and after, your words are meaningless. Your anecdotal evidence is unreliable and thus irrelevant.

This is precisely what I'm talking about.
 
No, I was dismissive, because I'm refusing to engage this "discussion" with you after that post. You are flat out denying reality, because I'm not giving you the precise phrasing you want. You are twisting things to create disagreements where they don't even exist, and extrapolating to extremes, and absolutes, that simply do not apply.

Responding via PM.
 
How do I know that you're telling the truth? How did you make fun of it? Did you genuinely believe that the fight ended because their moms had the same name, meaning the script was confusing? Or did you make fun of it because of the way it was delivered or because of some other reason? Why and how did you make fun of it? What did you know about the film before you saw it? What are your biases? Did you like Man of Steel? Did you hear any of the Rotten Tomatoes scores before seeing it?

How do I know that your answers to my questions will be truthful and not twisted to make your point? Unless you have an objective record of what you did and knew before you saw it and after, your words are meaningless. Your anecdotal evidence is unreliable and thus irrelevant.

Wow. :dry:
 
Absolutely this. It seems like they started making a Superman movie, because that's the character they had established and could explore, but also shoved Batman in there because the suits had spoken. And when the time came to butcher the movie, nobody dared cut Batman out, so they cut out the character with the more rounded arc, making the theatrical cut a confusing mess.
A friend of mine suggested the "Ben Affleck" factor. You hire a famous actor, you can expect that he'd demand more screentime whether it's warranted or not. :oldrazz: Shades of Christian Bale in Terminator Salvation. Guy is a great actor, but honestly, I just assume all actors are egomaniacs (I live in LA). That's why they do what they do in the first place. :oldrazz:
 
Lets hope these guys interact in Suicide Squad.
Cm3fqJrWEAAdc28.jpg
 
The UC definitely makes Batman to look a bit more reckless than he already seemed in the theatrical cut. I think it's more of a testament to the Batman they were going for, which is this weathered down individual that is no longer seeing the benefits of waging his war on crime in a more "fair" way.

He's deciding to act more militantly and hopefully we see some softening in that department in his solo film and even to an extent in Justice League.
 
I just verbally got in a fight with a guy online, from another forum, who reviewed on a podcast BvS vs CW, but he refused to watch the UC and instead stuck to the TC.

His reason? To him, the TC is the real BvS, but not the UC, that's a novelty item. And he called me a fanboy when I was begging him, encouraging him to watch the UC because we knew why it exists and why its better, because it is and the REAL BvS.

I compared it to other movies with similar backstories: Daredevil, Heaven's Gate, Brazil, Aliens, T2, Abyss, and yet he called me a fanboy?!
 
Sure, then why not engage them hand-to-hand, like in the warehouse while he was rescuing Martha? His brutality was super obvious there. Unnecessarily wreaking that much havoc in the Batmobile just made him look like he didn't care at all about collateral damage, whether property or bystanders.

He'd probably feel better beating them with his fists, at any rate. :oldrazz:

That was kind of the point though, in terms of this Batman who had "lost his way". He was not only callous and reckless, but also unsympathetic. All of his focus was on his misguided mission to destroy Superman, rather than on attempting to preserve life or giving these criminals the chance to be rehabilitated/redeemed.

In general, I think the UC shows that they didn't know whether they wanted to make a Batman movie or a Superman movie. They gave more time to Clark and Lois in the UC, and that story flow does feel better in general, but then Bruce feels like he's in there a little too much. But I can also understand the challenge they had - to make Bruce suspicious of Superman, but not so extreme that his redemption turn looks forced. That involves spending more time with him.

I disagree. The UC has much more of an even balance between Batman and Superman's equally-important arcs, with neither of them truly dominating the story. It's actually much more of a 3-person triangle (Batman, Superman, Lex) than the TC was.

His distrust of Superman could have naturally come from years of trusting people (Gotham PD, for example), and being burned each time. So he no longer trusts anyone besides him and Alfred, and wants to put Superman down. That's a different arc.

I just feel like we spent too much time on a Bruce Wayne arc that doesn't feel genuine, even beyond the quick turnaround.

IMO, one of the smartest things this film did was using the MOS Metropolis as the inciting incident that turned Batman against Superman. It gives him a real, legitimate reason to fear Superman and the power he possesses. But that was really just the "straw that broke the camel's back" in terms of pushing Batman over the edge, and part of his distrust from Superman did stem from all of his past experiences and failures as Batman, which is what you just suggested. The movie explicitly states this:

Alfred: You're gonna go to war?

Bruce Wayne: That son of a ***** brought the war to us two years ago. Jesus, Alfred, count the dead... thousands of people. What's next? Millions? He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there's even a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty... and we have to destroy him.

Alfred: But he is not our enemy!

Bruce Wayne: Not today. Twenty years in Gotham, Alfred; we've seen what promises are worth. How many good guys are left? How many stayed that way?


The film also paints the picture of a Batman who feels he hasn't accomplished much in his 20-year crusade. He's lost faith in himself and in humanity. He's watched good people turn bad (as expressed above). He's lost a friend and partner (Robin) at the hands of his greatest enemy. He feels that criminals are like weeds, and also describes himself and Alfred as having always been criminals (as opposed to heroes). The existence of Superman and the Metropolis battle (in which he was powerless to stop the senseless violence just as he was powerless to stop his parents' murder) are like big exclamation points on top of his already cynical point of view.

He tells Alfred that killing Superman might be the only thing he does that will matter and it will be his "legacy". He misguidedly feels that this is the only thing he can do to truly make a difference and save people at this point, but subconsciously, I imagine he felt that doing this would fill the void in his soul.

Personally, I think it was a really interesting take on a veteran Batman. It was the portrait of a man who had become a shell of his former self. A man consumed by cynicism who had fallen into darkness and despair, and needed to find a way to crawl back out of that darkness, to be saved from himself, to learn to feel hope again and believe in the inherent goodness of people, to remember the kind of hero he once was and why he ever became Batman in the first place -- not to hunt people, but to save people.

Superman, on the other hand, was someone who had an idealistic point of view, truly believed in the good of others, and had faith in humanity. He was a man trying to do the right thing and help people however he could (both as Clark and as Superman), but he existed in a world that was much more cynical and jaded than himself. In BvS, his idealism is tested every step of the way. He bears witness to people (Lex) committing truly evil acts that he never imagined or expected ("I'm afraid I didn't see it because I wasn't looking"), he deals with the unintended consequences of his good deeds, he's questioned/rejected by his people and told that he shouldn't intervene as he sees fit, he's manipulated, he's hunted and nearly killed by men, the lives of his loved ones are threatened because of him, etc.

And although he does question his idealism and nearly falls into that Batman-level of cynicism at one point ("Nobody stays good in this world"), he doesn't give in or give up. He never loses his faith in humanity, he winds up reaffirming his belief that this world is worth fighting for, and in turn, Superman and his actions are ultimately what save Batman.
 
I'll be honest, and this is coming from someone who really enjoys the film, especially the UC, I feel there still needed to be that "enough is enough!" moment for both Batman and Superman to really fuel the duel between them. I mean, I guess Superman knocking over Batman's car was the declaration of war (to Batman) but I think there needed to be...I dunno, some kind of incident that painted Superman as directly culpable in which leads Batman to go "I was right, this guy is evil, he needs to go down."
 
I'll be honest, and this is coming from someone who really enjoys the film, especially the UC, I feel there still needed to be that "enough is enough!" moment for both Batman and Superman to really fuel the duel between them. I mean, I guess Superman knocking over Batman's car was the declaration of war (to Batman) but I think there needed to be...I dunno, some kind of incident that painted Superman as directly culpable in which leads Batman to go "I was right, this guy is evil, he needs to go down."

I think that was (aside from "this guy is evil") the Senate Bombing, for Bruce.
It's also evident that it's very much Bruce is angry at himself for not catching Wallace, as the information was there, it just never made it to him. Can't remember why, at the moment, mind you.
So he's misplacing that anger, and also angry that he's let himself become distracted to the point of missing something like that.
So he's directing all of that at Superman, and justifying it by adding to the blame he already places on Superman, by blaming him for the bombing, as it being the kind of attention he is bringing, ON TOP of the collateral damage he's already brought.

Arguably could be said to mirror the escalation Batman is argued to bring to Gotham's criminal element as a response to him.
Ultimately, it's all about Bruce feeling inept, and ultimately ineffectual over his 20 years, and projecting that onto Superman as a result of his fears. "This may be the only thing I do that matters."
 
i really wish they got rid of the dream sequence because it just confuses the audiences if your gonna tease the audience atleast have it make sense or dont show it at all

i showed my dad the movie and he had no idea WTF was going on



I like the Knightmare, but I think they could have done something to make it fit in the story a little more without interrupting the flow, and also make it more explicit to the audience that he was seeing a possible future. Maybe they also could have made it a major part of Bruce's motivation, like "I have to stop him, I've seen the future." As the movie is now, they don't really explain his thoughts on it at all, like did he even remember it after he woke up, or did he just think it was a weird dream and cast it aside, without giving it much thought?
 
That's not a good excuse for the narrative flow, but even if it were, this is Batman; stealthy, sneaky, dressed in all-black Batman. It's the Batmobile chase that should've been the contingency plan, the tracker should've been Plan A.

Especially seeing how he almost knocked that thing off when he straight-up mushed that guy's skull with the Batmobile's tires.

That aside, the sequence is overlong, not particularly impressive, it breaks the flow of the movie, it makes Batman look like a psychopath and it makes Superman look like an idiot as well. Removing this one scene fixes a lot of problems. This is enough of a reason for me to hate it.



I think they got it right, the tracker was right to be Plan B. He didn't know how guarded it was gonna be when it got to it's destination. It would definitely be easier, if Superman hadn't gotten involved, to take out the truck and the guards and take it then, rather than assume "I'll just break in and take it when it gets to it's destination, I'm sure it will be easy enough."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"