BvS The BvS Ultimate Cut Thread - Part 2

[TX85]

After 25+ years of Batman sticking to the code in film at nausea, Affleck's was a breath of fresh air. He needed a bit of a shakeup

You haven't seen Batman '89,Batman Returns and some parts of the Nolan trilogy,have you?

 

[Paradox1]

You haven't seen Batman '89,Batman Returns and some parts of the Nolan trilogy,have you?

of course I seen them but for 89 and Returns I gave it pass cause I was too young to understand what it meant. However I remember in Batman Begins him only not saving Ra's but I don't remember the exact body count for those films.

 

[misslane38]

PART I

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

The images in the dream show us how Bruce is changing because they show how the decisions he made before the dream are being twisted by his own psyche. When Bruce has his Knightmare, he is already planning on intercepting the "dirty bomb" or whatever else was being brought into Gotham via the White Portuguese (man or ship). Bruce is already anxious and angry at Superman. The dream only shows us what is already on Bruce's mind. How do I know this? Because that's what dreams are: dreams are reflections of our own subconscious. The dreams show us just how paranoid Bruce has become, it shows us how he is processing the information about Superman's actions in Nairomi, and it shows us how he sees himself as intervening. As with all dreams, we are seeing how Bruce's investigation into the White Portuguese and his fears about Superman are the primary preoccupations of his subconscious: these are the things that trouble him most. We are seeing how he is thinking, but not seeing him make any decisions. Whenever one is on the precipice of making a big decision, one has to take time to think it through. The Knightmare gives the audience and Bruce a window into his mental state: it helps us and him understand what he does next. It is not the reason why he does what he does next. As for the Barry Allen part, Bruce isn't interested in metahumans or even a team until Superman restores his hope by the end of the film. Thus, it isn't Barry who serves as the ultimate catalyst.

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

If you don't think that is meaty stuff, then I have no idea what could possibly be meaty enough for you. You never felt his struggle for bullies? As a child, Pete Ross and Whitney Fordman bully Clark. As an adult, Clark is bullied by shipmates and men at the bar where he busses tables. In the scene with Whitney, for example, we see Clark clearly want to fight back. He wants to fight back so much that he even creates an indent in the metal fence pole he clings to, but he holds back. The man who harasses the woman at the bar clearly gets under Clark's skin. He stands up to him but does not throw a punch, but he does mess with the guy's truck later that evening.

I never said that Clark struggled with the decision to save the bully from the bus: Pete Ross. He doesn't have to struggle for it to be a scene that reveals something about his personality. What we learn is that Clark's instinct is to protect regardless of his personal feelings about someone. Steve Rogers dives on what he believes is a live grenade without thinking in the first Captain America movie, revealing his inherent altruism and bravery to those around him and to the audience. For Clark, it's the same thing. He's also still young and learning; so if his first instinct is to save without thought of the consequences (we do see him look around the bus briefly before going through the back door for the rescue), his father's later lecture about it teaches him the importance of caution.

Clark is constantly dealing with the desire to stand up for himself and for others while at the same time understanding that he cannot fight back the way others do because he must conceal the truth about himself or assuage their fears about his capabilities. It's a character dynamic that runs as a throughline for his character over both films. Superman is a man who has spent his entire life restraining himself in the face of bullies, yet he is also a man who will save the lives of those bullies if they need saving. Pete Ross bullied Clark on the bus, but Clark chose to save his life anyway. Later, Pete is a friend to Clark and his family. He's even there next to Martha Kent at her son's funeral. It's an echo of what happens between Superman and Batman. According to you, this sort of character work is shallow and dull. It is not "meaty" enough. I just cannot see how that could be the case.

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

You can't deny meaning and condescendingly tell me that I'm seeing meaning that isn't there without providing proof to support your reading, which is to say you have no reading. You're like someone seeing a mother hold her child for the first time with tears in her eyes and a smile on her lips, and when someone witnessing says they see a scene of tremendous love, you would see nothing and feel nothing. So, tell me, what did you get out of the sequence of Clark learning more about himself as an alien, like being told his parents loved him, sent him to Earth with hopes that could translate into a purpose in life that allowed him to be himself? Remember, in a previous scene Clark had this conversation with the Kents:

Clark: I just wanna do something useful with my life.
Jonathan: So farming, feeding people. That's not useful?
Clark: I didn't say that.
Jonathan: Our family's been farming for five generations.
Clark: Your family, not mine. I don't even know why I'm listening to you. You're not my dad. You're just some guy who found me in a field.​

I am not looking for anything. What I wrote is a part of Man of Steel. The meaning is in the film and does not come from me at all. In Man of Steel, Jonathan is not sure his son should use his powers to help people because it may risk exposing him to a world that isn't ready for him. Jonathan's cynicism is so deep that he will not even allow his son to save him from certain death when a tornado ripped through Smallville because he believed it was still too soon for the world to know the truth about Clark Kent. But Clark is still curious about who he is, and part of what he does when he travels the world helping people is look for answers. When he finds them in the Arctic scout ship, he is clearly a changed man. Just his real name puts a smile on his face, and his first steps learning how to fly make him ecstatic. It is transparently obvious that being in the dark about his origins, holding back, and hiding was stifling Clark's spirit. Meeting Jor-El, hearing his name, getting his suit, and learning to fly is liberating. You are telling me that none of the above translated for you as you watched the film? None of it.

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

Just because something is simple doesn't mean it isn't meaningful. It means a great deal about Clark's character that the process of learning about himself and experiencing the full extent of his innate abilities allows him to break free from his previous state of repression. It means that Clark is freed and empowered by the truth of his alien heritage. Rather than instill more fear and self-hatred, being an alien is a joyful experience for Clark.

When I said Clark gave himself up to Zod without fear, I was speaking to his demeanor. In a previous scene with the reverend in Smallville, Clark was very much conflicted and scared. Still, when he turned himself into the military and ultimately entered Zod's ship, Clark did not show fear. He accepted his fate with strength and grace, and I think that's revealing about his character. Clark is a man who knows how to do stoic sacrifice, and that's a theme that is revisited in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice when Superman voluntarily stands in front of Finch's committee and eventually gives his life to save the world from Doomsday.

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

It's a struggle because the film clearly shows how much Clark wanted to come to some sort of peaceful resolution that allowed humans and Kryptonians to coexist. Clark was happy to learn where he came from, and he was even more pleased when the possibility that there were others like him out there. Even the death of Zod tore him up because it meant that he was the last of his kind. There's an internal conflict between the desire for peace and a sense of belonging and a desire to protect his adoptive planet from those who would do it harm. Yes, Clark must choose Earth, but just because it is an obvious choice doesn't mean it does not pain Clark to make that choice.

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

Nowhere? Up until that point, Lois was the reason why Clark had some reason to believe that the world was finally ready to accept someone like him. She believed in him and took great risks to her life and reputation to protect him, and he was grateful for it. She was there for him when he turned himself into the military, she was there for him when he turned himself into Zod, she saved him from Zod's probing on the ship, and she was a valuable partner in his mission to send the Kryptonians away. But that's just what she did for him, there's also Lois's clear delight in meeting someone so selfless and good. There's her curiosity and playfulness in their interrogation scene at the military base. A woman who gets writer's block when she's not wearing a flack jacket is going to be attracted to the embodiment of the ultimate adventure wrapped up in an enigma. Then there's the comfort and peacefulness on both their faces after they both save each other from Zod's ship. It was a kiss. It was a kiss after two people who had grown to like and trust each other believed they have saved the world from a deadly alien invasion. What other development is necessary? It's a kiss not a proposal of marriage!

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

They did. They showed how much his decision to kill Zod pained him by showing him utterly distraught after the deed was done. There was a long, guttural scream followed by tears. He literally had to cling to Lois for support after it was over. Losing Zod -- losing every last link to his Kryptonian heritage -- was a clear source of grief for Superman. Besides the obvious conflict between Earth and Krypton, however, there was the added layer of just having to kill to protect people. That's an interesting character conflict to play with without the added Earth/Krypton component.

The idea of legacy is continued in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Bruce, who is childless and who has seen no tangible beneficial effect of his efforts to save Gotham, is searching for a legacy. He believes risking everything to save the world from the threat of Superman may give him that legacy, and ultimately discovers that his new legacy will be honoring his former enemy's life by forming a team of heroes in his name. For his part, Superman sees his legacy as hope, which is symbolized by the \S/ on his chest. That's what the symbol meant on his world. Throughout the film, Superman questions whether his intervention is doing more harm than good. Is the legacy of hope from the House of El something that can survive on Earth? Is there enough good left in the world to fulfill the visions of both of his fathers? In the end, he finds hope not only in humanity but also in the woman he loves. The hope of Krypton can live on on Earth. Superman feared his legacy was going to be tarnished and snuffed out by the darkness of the world, but he discovers that there is still hope left, and he dies to preserve that hope. That's his legacy.

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

Clark's target is Batman because he is a fellow vigilante. Clark specifically targets Batman because what Batman does and how he operates relates to and affects his work as a hero. While Superman is wrongly accused of brutal justice and going too far, it is Batman who is actually doing it. A vigilante like Batman gives the public a picture of what it means to be a hero, and that picture suggests a man who can only see reason through the form of a fist. Clark doesn't want Batman to poison the well for all heroes, including himself, particularly in the midst of powder keg of controversy. In other words, it a little bit selfish, which is a character trait that adds layers to Clark's character.

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

Like someone who maintains the Earth is flat after being provided examples of the contrary, you opt for undeveloped and unsupported denial instead of engaging with the material and substance presented to you. The events I described are illustrative, which is a fantastic way for a film to operate: to show rather than simply tell. When I cited Clark attempting to talk to the African woman or his willingness to go before the Senate hearing, I was reminding you of the times in the movie that illustrated Clark's openness to doing what is difficult--facing people who hate you--in the hopes that they can understand each other better and reach some form of accord. Unlike Batman who only understands fists, Superman does what Senator June Finch lauds throughout the movie. She says, "In a democracy, good is a conversation." When Clark's attempts to join this conversation are thwarted (he fails to make contact with the Nairomi woman and the Capitol is attacked), it upsets him and threatens to further erode his optimism.

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

Character is revealed in these moments, though. By manifesting his partner in the conversation as his father, and by exploring the content of that conversation, we learn more about who he is and his personality which are your concerns. That his conscience, for lack of a better word, takes the form of Pa Kent means that Clark considers Jonathan the primary source of wisdom and guidance in his life and that he misses him. That he recalls a story about a rescue during a flood that caused unintended and unforeseen collateral damage to the Lang farm means that Clark desires reassurance for the guilt he feels for the bad things that have happened as he tries to do what he thinks is right and helpful. That it's the promise of Martha who is said to have ended the nightmares that Jonathan had means that not only are the nightmares throughout the film symbolic of loss and regret, but that the way to hold onto one's optimism, hope, and light in the face of darkness--to find the light that is the truth and not the "beautiful lie"--is to remember, listen, and hold onto those that love you. Clark needed to listen to Lois and realize that his world wasn't lost. Batman, too, had in Alfred someone who tried to remind him of who he was and to hold him accountable for the dark path he was following, but he didn't listen.

As for the fight with Batman, Clark tells Lois that he will seek Batman's help, and he tries to talk to Bruce several times. However, the fight makes it impossible, and Clark also remembers the warning that Batman only understands fists. He tried talking and saw that, true to form, it didn't work. So he thought he'd end the fight quickly and try again, but Batman makes it harder for him than he anticipated (he didn't know about kryptonite, for example). Ultimately, though, they both realize they had been played by Luthor, who used their fears and good intentions (to help people) against them, and that they had more in common than had been previously assumed.

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

Yes, because instead of Batman killing him or refusing to help his mother, he was able to stop and to reform. To know that something aside from fists still could reach Batman meant that he wasn't a hopeless case of a man lost in his own nightmare.

 

[misslane38]

PART II

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

You don't "buy his reasoning" because he doesn't have a reason to fight Batman. How closely did you watch the movie? Superman never wanted to fight Batman. He repeatedly tried to get him to stop his vigilante crusade without fists. He began with a warning and then tried to get Batman to help him rather than fight him. It took Lex blackmailing Superman in order to get Superman to even consider the possibility of fighting him, and even then he tried to reason with him at least two times before he settled on merely defending himself from Batman's repeated assaults. Clark Kent was the one who took on the Batman, and it was because his growing cruelty was trampling on civil liberties. Batman was giving heroes a bad name, and all Clark wanted to do was use the power of the press and eventually a stern warning to push Batman to hang up his cowl. Superman did not want to fight Batman.

I cannot change what feel or what feels "true" to you, but I would like to know what characters in superhero movies do you believe meet your high standards for deep and complex character development. What sort of reasoning would you buy for Superman to fight Batman?

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

Okay.

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

It has everything to do with the story in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. The film's narrative conflict rests on the idea if the world needs heroes and can these heroes stand together. Wonder Woman represents a resolution of the narrative conflict between the titular heroes. She has abandoned humanity because she does not believe heroes can stand together; they cannot share. Wonder Woman joining Batman and Superman in their efforts to defeat Doomsday reveal that Wonder Woman has seen enough to believe that her cynicism is no longer warranted. The metahuman thesis is also a concept introduced early on in the film as one of the reasons Lex Luthor believes these special beings need to be eliminated to restore order. Wonder Woman is proof that the metahuman thesis is real.

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

You don't think Batman's plans to take on Superman are clear evidence that Batman has a death wish? Bruce thought that killing Superman would be a redemptive act for him. He would risk everything in order to secure some sort of positive legacy for himself. All of which is irrelevant given that even though Wallace blamed Bruce, Bruce did not necessarily accept culpability.

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

Batman did not know anything about Superman's parents. He could have believed they were aliens for all we know. For him, Superman's parents were an abstraction. He could project onto them whatever fiction he wanted in order to justify his prejudicial disdain. Superman wanting his mother, Martha, saved as his dying wish was a tangible link to Bruce's own history and subconscious. There in his mechanized suit with his mechanized voice, Batman was all but a weapon of war. "Martha" ignited his own humanity and allowed him to see past Superman as a concept and to see a real person, see himself.

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

I don't know, but Lex seemed to believe that his goons were capable of tracking him. Lex just revealed to Superman that he's a master manipulator. He orchestrated Nairomi, Wallace Keefe, and Batman against him using every conceivable method to obfuscate, conceal, and distract. What reason did Superman have to disbelieve his warnings?

Fair enough.

Okay.

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

Wonder Woman is someone outside the conflict. She only engages when the conflict is resolved. Her arc from distant observer to active participant illustrates the trajectory other heroes will follow. Batman and Superman resolving their differences and forming an alliance is the foundation upon which the Justice League is formed, and Diana is the first hero who builds upon this foundation.

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

Again, what part of Batman going up against Superman do you think suggests that Bruce doesn't have a death wish? Also, let's be honest, is it really difficult to believe that Bruce, in his current mindset, wouldn't be blind to his own hypocrisy? Batman focuses on Superman because he believes Superman represents a more significant threat given his power set. If Batman can destroy Superman, then he can give up the hunt because his legacy is secured. As a man, his continued existence does not threaten the world or the universe. He's a human not a godlike being from another world.

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

Superman is not giving heroes a bad name. Lex is putting on that puppet show for the masses. Superman wouldn't stop himself because he knows the truth about himself. Even so, after the Capitol bombing, he does consider hanging up his cape. It is not Superman's prerogative to stop wars. It's the false suggestion that he engaged in "stopping wars" that got him into trouble with Senator Finch in the first place! Superman believed Batman was a mass murderer, and a mass murderer who was poisoning the well for heroes like him.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Bruce has dreams that highlight his broken mind.

"Stop showing us what we already know."

Lex says the God never saved him from his father's fist and abomination.

"Show us, don't tell us."

I've no desire to carry on this debate at this point.

 

[The Joker]

I watched the UE last night....I've tried to like this movie. But it is just bad. Ben Affleck, as I have said was the beginning, was profound in the movie, but his Batman sucks. I don't care if in later movies, he doesn't kill, or use guns. It's too late, he's already done both. He will be forever tainted for me, unless Batman's next movie doesn't outright have any BVS ties. Gal is great, and Cavill is okay. However, I LOVE L O V E Fishburne as Perry. He is hilarious in the way he talks to people lol.

The worst part though? Jessie Freakin Eisenberg. Easily one of the worst CBM villains ever acted.

Amen to that.

 

[TX85]

I still don't know what to think of Jessie and this Lex, very mixed on him.

 

[idiot09]

@misslane38,You have surmised this extremely well,and I cant put in words how well you did it.I'll just say.Thank you

 

[Rapunzel]

Re: The knightmare. I think it's definitely a dream indicating Bruce's mind. It's the 1% he fears. I don't think it's a coincidence that Bats is doing the same thing in his dream that he's doing in reality: Searching for the K rock. I also don't think it's coincidence that Superman burns the guys tied up with Bats in the cave; this is a subconscious reference to the guys Supes was framed for burning in Africa (that UC gives it that interesting meaning). I think it's totally a dream. Now I know the references to parademons and the omega symbol foreshadow DS. But there might be reasons for that which don't negate the knightmare being a dream.

I suspect the knightmare is a dream, but Flash's warning is real, but not about Superman. Instead, it's about the same "he" Lex references.

 

[souperman]

Re: The knightmare. I think it's definitely a dream indicating Bruce's mind. It's the 1% he fears. I don't think it's a coincidence that Bats is doing the same thing in his dream that he's doing in reality: Searching for the K rock. I also don't think it's coincidence that Superman burns the guys tied up with Bats in the cave; this is a subconscious reference to the guys Supes was framed for burning in Africa (that UC gives it that interesting meaning). I think it's totally a dream. Now I know the references to parademons and the omega symbol foreshadow DS. But there might be reasons for that which don't negate the knightmare being a dream.

I suspect the knightmare is a dream, but Flash's warning is real, but not about Superman. Instead, it's about the same "he" Lex references.

Could be but it doesn't explain the paradeamons which is pretty specific and would be odd to dream... But then , they are dreams.
Either way he takes it as a warning to stay prepared.

 

[Mr. Forest]

I really do not understand this obsession about Batman killing. In the last 25 years, there has been only one Batman movie where Batman does not kill a single person: Batman & Robin. Of course, circumstances are different in each version of the character, but I feel like the no-kill rule should only stick to the comics. That doesn't mean I think Batman should kill all the criminals he faces, just that if he has to cross the line, then he should cross it.

I do think Batman did go a little to far in this movie from a story-telling perspective, but at least he learned from his mistakes and will become the more heroic Batman he needs to be.

 

[NeoRanger]

I do think Batman did go a little to far in this movie from a story-telling perspective, but at least he learned from his mistakes and will become the more heroic Batman he needs to be.

Nah, he was a hell of a lot worse in Burton's movies. Here it's just more jarring because he busts out the mini-guns and lets loose.

But he's still allergic to all those neatly available SMGs later in the warehouse. Won't touch those.

 

[Mr. Forest]

Nah, he was a hell of a lot worse in Burton's movies. Here it's just more jarring because he busts out the mini-guns and lets loose.

But he's still allergic to all those neatly available SMGs later in the warehouse. Won't touch those.

I certainly agree there about the Burton Batman being worse, but I don't think him killing ruins the character/movie because there is restraint there in most cases. Then again, he does mow-down a few Joker thugs who aren't doing anything and straight up intends to kills the Joker no matter what. Plus he does blow up Axis Chemicals which has Joker goons in it as well. Perhaps he could have used a bit more restraint in the Burton movies after all.

 

[theBKwhopper]

Because he's Batman. If he can kill the "God" Superman, then I'm sure he's, with some new plot armor, capable of enslaving the world.

That's some really dumb logic.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

That's some really dumb logic.

Disagreed. Batman's reason in movie to fight Superman is really dumb logic.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Amen to that.

Pretty sad that Jai "I have the charisma of a wooden plank" Courtney looks 1,000 times better in Suicide Squad. Anyone wanna see Eisenberg do a good Lex Luthor? Watch The Double.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Batman's logic in the movie boils down to this:

"There is an incredibly dangerous alien who could kill us all...Alfred, I'm gonna punch it."

 

[A Necessary Evil]

After 25+ years of Batman sticking to the code in film at nausea, Affleck's was a breath of fresh air. He needed a bit of a shakeup

Yeah, cause strapping a dude to a bomb and smiling about it totally sticks to the character.

I can understand why some feel that Batman for this DCEU is already tainted but I don't think it's too late, Ruined for a while maybe but I have a feeling Batman in his brief screen time for Suicide Squad will be better than here and Affleck has the potential to the character true justice in his solo film.

Affleck will be okay. As long as his solo has no involvement form Snyder, which, from his words, sounds like he won't be [god please give Zack the boot! ], he'll be okay. He's already lauded as the best part of the movie.

 

[TeeKay]

Wait did I just read that Wonder Woman had an arc in BvS or I'm mis-interpretations things?

 

[Paradox1]

Yeah, cause strapping a dude to a bomb and smiling about it totally sticks to the character

When did he strap a guy to a bomb?

 

[Steyin]

Just watched the Ultimate cut. Enjoyed the theatrical cut, but this was so much better. I still can't fathom the amount of negativity to this film quite honestly. To each their own I suppose.

 

[Whatupman]

PART I

The images in the dream show us how Bruce is changing because they show how the decisions he made before the dream are being twisted by his own psyche. When Bruce has his Knightmare, he is already planning on intercepting the "dirty bomb" or whatever else was being brought into Gotham via the White Portuguese (man or ship). Bruce is already anxious and angry at Superman. The dream only shows us what is already on Bruce's mind. How do I know this? Because that's what dreams are: dreams are reflections of our own subconscious. The dreams show us just how paranoid Bruce has become, it shows us how he is processing the information about Superman's actions in Nairomi, and it shows us how he sees himself as intervening. As with all dreams, we are seeing how Bruce's investigation into the White Portuguese and his fears about Superman are the primary preoccupations of his subconscious: these are the things that trouble him most. We are seeing how he is thinking, but not seeing him make any decisions. Whenever one is on the precipice of making a big decision, one has to take time to think it through. The Knightmare gives the audience and Bruce a window into his mental state: it helps us and him understand what he does next. It is not the reason why he does what he does next. As for the Barry Allen part, Bruce isn't interested in metahumans or even a team until Superman restores his hope by the end of the film. Thus, it isn't Barry who serves as the ultimate catalyst.

So it's just a tool for the audience to get into Bruce's state of mind. A long sequence, basically then just consisting of exposition to make the audience understand what's going on, without actually developing either Bruce or the story. The worst kind of exposition.

If you don't think that is meaty stuff, then I have no idea what could possibly be meaty enough for you. You never felt his struggle for bullies? As a child, Pete Ross and Whitney Fordman bully Clark. As an adult, Clark is bullied by shipmates and men at the bar where he busses tables. In the scene with Whitney, for example, we see Clark clearly want to fight back. He wants to fight back so much that he even creates an indent in the metal fence pole he clings to, but he holds back. The man who harasses the woman at the bar clearly gets under Clark's skin. He stands up to him but does not throw a punch, but he does mess with the guy's truck later that evening.

It's not meaty because nothing would happen if he just stood up to his bullies without showing the full scope of his powers. It's no real struggle there.

I never said that Clark struggled with the decision to save the bully from the bus: Pete Ross. He doesn't have to struggle for it to be a scene that reveals something about his personality. What we learn is that Clark's instinct is to protect regardless of his personal feelings about someone. Steve Rogers dives on what he believes is a live grenade without thinking in the first Captain America movie, revealing his inherent altruism and bravery to those around him and to the audience. For Clark, it's the same thing. He's also still young and learning; so if his first instinct is to save without thought of the consequences (we do see him look around the bus briefly before going through the back door for the rescue), his father's later lecture about it teaches him the importance of caution.

I loved that scene in Captain America, and I was impressed by Steve Rogers when he was willing to die like that. The difference with the scene in MoS is that what Clark is risking, doesn't feel so major. I don't get the feeling that something terrible is gonna happen if people find out that he has powers, because they haven't showed anything that would make me dread that. They have only had Jonathan talking about the risk. In Captain America I got what Steve was willing to give up. In MoS, not so much.

Clark is constantly dealing with the desire to stand up for himself and for others while at the same time understanding that he cannot fight back the way others do because he must conceal the truth about himself or assuage their fears about his capabilities. It's a character dynamic that runs as a throughline for his character over both films. Superman is a man who has spent his entire life restraining himself in the face of bullies, yet he is also a man who will save the lives of those bullies if they need saving. Pete Ross bullied Clark on the bus, but Clark chose to save his life anyway. Later, Pete is a friend to Clark and his family. He's even there next to Martha Kent at her son's funeral. It's an echo of what happens between Superman and Batman. According to you, this sort of character work is shallow and dull. It is not "meaty" enough. I just cannot see how that could be the case.

The character work is shallow and dull because there's no real risk to his choices. He can stand up for himself and others without revealing the truth about himself. Why wouldn't he? Does standing up for himself mean punching a hole through someone's chest?

You can't deny meaning and condescendingly tell me that I'm seeing meaning that isn't there without providing proof to support your reading, which is to say you have no reading. You're like someone seeing a mother hold her child for the first time with tears in her eyes and a smile on her lips, and when someone witnessing says they see a scene of tremendous love, you would see nothing and feel nothing. So, tell me, what did you get out of the sequence of Clark learning more about himself as an alien, like being told his parents loved him, sent him to Earth with hopes that could translate into a purpose in life that allowed him to be himself?

I am not looking for anything. What I wrote is a part of Man of Steel. The meaning is in the film and does not come from me at all. In Man of Steel, Jonathan is not sure his son should use his powers to help people because it may risk exposing him to a world that isn't ready for him. Jonathan's cynicism is so deep that he will not even allow his son to save him from certain death when a tornado ripped through Smallville because he believed it was still too soon for the world to know the truth about Clark Kent. But Clark is still curious about who he is, and part of what he does when he travels the world helping people is look for answers. When he finds them in the Arctic scout ship, he is clearly a changed man. Just his real name puts a smile on his face, and his first steps learning how to fly make him ecstatic. It is transparently obvious that being in the dark about his origins, holding back, and hiding was stifling Clark's spirit. Meeting Jor-El, hearing his name, getting his suit, and learning to fly is liberating. You are telling me that none of the above translated for you as you watched the film? None of it.

Well, in the scene when Clark finds out who he is by Jor-El, what I most got out of that scene was a lot of exposition from Jor-El about Krypton. And, sure, Clark smiled when he found out his real name, and that was actually a nice small moment. But we didn't get a reaction from Clark when Jor-El said that they sent him to Earth with a purpose, so I can't say that I got out much, character wise, from that scene. And of course he's happy when he's flying, he's freaking flying. That's amazing, so why wouldn't he be happy? If I could fly, I would smile like crazy.

Just because something is simple doesn't mean it isn't meaningful. It means a great deal about Clark's character that the process of learning about himself and experiencing the full extent of his innate abilities allows him to break free from his previous state of repression. It means that Clark is freed and empowered by the truth of his alien heritage. Rather than instill more fear and self-hatred, being an alien is a joyful experience for Clark.

When I said Clark gave himself up to Zod without fear, I was speaking to his demeanor. In a previous scene with the reverend in Smallville, Clark was very much conflicted and scared. Still, when he turned himself into the military and ultimately entered Zod's ship, Clark did not show fear. He accepted his fate with strength and grace, and I think that's revealing about his character. Clark is a man who knows how to do stoic sacrifice, and that's a theme that is revisited in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice when Superman voluntarily stands in front of Finch's committee and eventually gives his life to save the world from Doomsday.

When something is that simple, it loses power and meaning. Some two minute exposition from Jor-El, and he's ready to be the man he always wanted to be, after thirty something years of not knowing who he is.

It's a struggle because the film clearly shows how much Clark wanted to come to some sort of peaceful resolution that allowed humans and Kryptonians to coexist. Clark was happy to learn where he came from, and he was even more pleased when the possibility that there were others like him out there. Even the death of Zod tore him up because it meant that he was the last of his kind. There's an internal conflict between the desire for peace and a sense of belonging and a desire to protect his adoptive planet from those who would do it harm. Yes, Clark must choose Earth, but just because it is an obvious choice doesn't mean it does not pain Clark to make that choice.

I just never got the feeling that it pained Clark to make that choice, except for the moment right after he killed Zod. But before that moment, nothing.

Nowhere? Up until that point, Lois was the reason why Clark had some reason to believe that the world was finally ready to accept someone like him. She believed in him and took great risks to her life and reputation to protect him, and he was grateful for it. She was there for him when he turned himself into the military, she was there for him when he turned himself into Zod, she saved him from Zod's probing on the ship, and she was a valuable partner in his mission to send the Kryptonians away. But that's just what she did for him, there's also Lois's clear delight in meeting someone so selfless and good. There's her curiosity and playfulness in their interrogation scene at the military base. A woman who gets writer's block when she's not wearing a flack jacket is going to be attracted to the embodiment of the ultimate adventure wrapped up in an enigma. Then there's the comfort and peacefulness on both their faces after they both save each other from Zod's ship. It was a kiss. It was a kiss after two people who had grown to like and trust each other believed they have saved the world from a deadly alien invasion. What other development is necessary? It's a kiss not a proposal of marriage!

It just didn't feel like a natural progression for me. They had scenes together, sure, and they were there for each other, but I didn't feel that chemistry coming from them. And you would think that Clark might have other things on his mind. Let's be honest, the only reason to why they kissed is because we can't have a woman and a man be anything but love interests.

They did. They showed how much his decision to kill Zod pained him by showing him utterly distraught after the deed was done. There was a long, guttural scream followed by tears. He literally had to cling to Lois for support after it was over. Losing Zod -- losing every last link to his Kryptonian heritage -- was a clear source of grief for Superman. Besides the obvious conflict between Earth and Krypton, however, there was the added layer of just having to kill to protect people. That's an interesting character conflict to play with without the added Earth/Krypton component.

But that was after he had already done the decision. There was no build up to that moment, which left it hollow.

Clark's target is Batman because he is a fellow vigilante. Clark specifically targets Batman because what Batman does and how he operates relates to and affects his work as a hero. While Superman is wrongly accused of brutal justice and going too far, it is Batman who is actually doing it. A vigilante like Batman gives the public a picture of what it means to be a hero, and that picture suggests a man who can only see reason through the form of a fist. Clark doesn't want Batman to poison the well for all heroes, including himself, particularly in the midst of powder keg of controversy. In other words, it a little bit selfish, which is a character trait that adds layers to Clark's character.

The problem is that nobody calls him on his selfishness, which makes it seem like his selfishness is justified. Compare that to Matt Murdock in Daredevil, who gets called out when he's acting selfish.

Character is revealed in these moments, though. By manifesting his partner in the conversation as his father, and by exploring the content of that conversation, we learn more about who he is and his personality which are your concerns. That his conscience, for lack of a better word, takes the form of Pa Kent means that Clark considers Jonathan the primary source of wisdom and guidance in his life and that he misses him. That he recalls a story about a rescue during a flood that caused unintended and unforeseen collateral damage to the Lang farm means that Clark desires reassurance for the guilt he feels for the bad things that have happened as he tries to do what he thinks is right and helpful. That it's the promise of Martha who is said to have ended the nightmares that Jonathan had means that not only are the nightmares throughout the film symbolic of loss and regret, but that the way to hold onto one's optimism, hope, and light in the face of darkness--to find the light that is the truth and not the "beautiful lie"--is to remember, listen, and hold onto those that love you. Clark needed to listen to Lois and realize that his world wasn't lost. Batman, too, had in Alfred someone who tried to remind him of who he was and to hold him accountable for the dark path he was following, but he didn't listen.

Well, my concern is also that the character's development is convincing and believable, which it wasn't in this scene. It was rushed and it turned an active character into a passive. Why couldn't Clark make some active choices that naturally develops his character, instead of just getting a vision of his dead father?

As for the fight with Batman, Clark tells Lois that he will seek Batman's help, and he tries to talk to Bruce several times. However, the fight makes it impossible, and Clark also remembers the warning that Batman only understands fists. He tried talking and saw that, true to form, it didn't work. So he thought he'd end the fight quickly and try again, but Batman makes it harder for him than he anticipated (he didn't know about kryptonite, for example). Ultimately, though, they both realize they had been played by Luthor, who used their fears and good intentions (to help people) against them, and that they had more in common than had been previously assumed.

He tries to talk to him a little in the beginning, but it doesn't take much for him to jump into a unnecessary fight with Batman. And he didn't try and end the fight quickly. If he wanted to, he could have ended the fight in a less than a second. He is quite fast, you know.

Yes, because instead of Batman killing him or refusing to help his mother, he was able to stop and to reform. To know that something aside from fists still could reach Batman meant that he wasn't a hopeless case of a man lost in his own nightmare.

But considering what made Batman not kill him (his mother having the same name as Clark's), Clark shouldn't have felt hope, he should have thought that this guy was crazy.

 

[Whatupman]

PART II

You don't "buy his reasoning" because he doesn't have a reason to fight Batman. How closely did you watch the movie? Superman never wanted to fight Batman. He repeatedly tried to get him to stop his vigilante crusade without fists. He began with a warning and then tried to get Batman to help him rather than fight him. It took Lex blackmailing Superman in order to get Superman to even consider the possibility of fighting him, and even then he tried to reason with him at least two times before he settled on merely defending himself from Batman's repeated assaults. Clark Kent was the one who took on the Batman, and it was because his growing cruelty was trampling on civil liberties. Batman was giving heroes a bad name, and all Clark wanted to do was use the power of the press and eventually a stern warning to push Batman to hang up his cowl. Superman did not want to fight Batman.

I cannot change what feel or what feels "true" to you, but I would like to know what characters in superhero movies do you believe meet your high standards for deep and complex character development. What sort of reasoning would you buy for Superman to fight Batman?

"Fighting" was the wrong word to use on my part. I meant that I didn't buy Superman's reasoning for engaging in a conflict with Batman. But, actually, you saying that it was because of selfish reasons, makes me understand it a little bit more. Batman gave heroes a bad name, meaning he gave Superman a bad name. It makes Superman look a little bit pathetic, but I can at least understand his reasoning better now.

It has everything to do with the story in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. The film's narrative conflict rests on the idea if the world needs heroes and can these heroes stand together. Wonder Woman represents a resolution of the narrative conflict between the titular heroes. She has abandoned humanity because she does not believe heroes can stand together; they cannot share. Wonder Woman joining Batman and Superman in their efforts to defeat Doomsday reveal that Wonder Woman has seen enough to believe that her cynicism is no longer warranted. The metahuman thesis is also a concept introduced early on in the film as one of the reasons Lex Luthor believes these special beings need to be eliminated to restore order. Wonder Woman is proof that the metahuman thesis is real.

But Wonder Woman isn't even the one who meets the Flash in that scene, so that scene has no impact on Wonder Woman's journey.

You don't think Batman's plans to take on Superman are clear evidence that Batman has a death wish? Bruce thought that killing Superman would be a redemptive act for him. He would risk everything in order to secure some sort of positive legacy for himself. All of which is irrelevant given that even though Wallace blamed Bruce, Bruce did not necessarily accept culpability.

So Batman wants to kill Superman partly because he drove Wallace to become a suicide bomber, but he doesn't take responsibility himself, even though Wallace put some blame on him, and yet thinks that killing Superman is a redemptive act? Batman doesn't really make sense, does he?

Batman did not know anything about Superman's parents. He could have believed they were aliens for all we know. For him, Superman's parents were an abstraction. He could project onto them whatever fiction he wanted in order to justify his prejudicial disdain. Superman wanting his mother, Martha, saved as his dying wish was a tangible link to Bruce's own history and subconscious. There in his mechanized suit with his mechanized voice, Batman was all but a weapon of war. "Martha" ignited his own humanity and allowed him to see past Superman as a concept and to see a real person, see himself.

But that still means that Batman stopped trying to kill Superman because their mother's shared the same name. If Superman's mother would have had another name, which wouldn't have ignited Batman's own humanity, he would have killed Superman. That is ridiculous.

I don't know, but Lex seemed to believe that his goons were capable of tracking him. Lex just revealed to Superman that he's a master manipulator. He orchestrated Nairomi, Wallace Keefe, and Batman against him using every conceivable method to obfuscate, conceal, and distract. What reason did Superman have to disbelieve his warnings?

Well, I don't see how engaging in a fight with Batman was a better alternative.

Wonder Woman is someone outside the conflict. She only engages when the conflict is resolved. Her arc from distant observer to active participant illustrates the trajectory other heroes will follow. Batman and Superman resolving their differences and forming an alliance is the foundation upon which the Justice League is formed, and Diana is the first hero who builds upon this foundation.

Right, so she's in it because of Justice League, not because it serves this story.

Again, what part of Batman going up against Superman do you think suggests that Bruce doesn't have a death wish? Also, let's be honest, is it really difficult to believe that Bruce, in his current mindset, wouldn't be blind to his own hypocrisy? Batman focuses on Superman because he believes Superman represents a more significant threat given his power set. If Batman can destroy Superman, then he can give up the hunt because his legacy is secured. As a man, his continued existence does not threaten the world or the universe. He's a human not a godlike being from another world.

I wouldn't have a problem with Bruce's hypocrisy if someone actually called him on it. And considering he was able to kill Superman if he wanted to, you could make the argument that he's more dangerous than Superman.

Superman is not giving heroes a bad name. Lex is putting on that puppet show for the masses. Superman wouldn't stop himself because he knows the truth about himself. Even so, after the Capitol bombing, he does consider hanging up his cape. It is not Superman's prerogative to stop wars. It's the false suggestion that he engaged in "stopping wars" that got him into trouble with Senator Finch in the first place! Superman believed Batman was a mass murderer, and a mass murderer who was poisoning the well for heroes like him.

Yeah, you're right about it actually being Lex's fault, I shouldn't blame Superman for that. But there's definitely worse people than Batman who needs to be stopped, and Superman has to see that. But if we go by the reason that he acts because he's being selfish, then I can understand it more.

 

[Whatupman]

Bruce has dreams that highlight his broken mind.

"Stop showing us what we already know."

Lex says the God never saved him from his father's fist and abomination.

"Show us, don't tell us."

I've no desire to carry on this debate at this point.

You seriously don't see the difference? In one corner we have "Stop showing us what we already know", meaning: Don't show us scenes that doesn't give us any new information and doesn't develop the story, and in the other corner we have "Show us, don't tell us", meaning: Show us the impact of this information we haven't seen before, don't just talk about it.

Come on now ...

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

So now I've watched the Ultimate Edition twice, once alone and once with my family (they haven't seen BvS before). My family didn't like the UE (my mom would not stop complaining about Wonder Woman's plan to steal a photo in an age where you can copy files), so I think they would've hated the TC.

I have to say, while I don't think the UE is a good movie, I actually enjoyed it. I think a big reason why was BvS always had to be a Superman story, and the TC neglected his side too much in favor of Batman. I had fun watching Clark investigating Bruce and watching that parallel Bruce's own efforts to take down Superman. So it was nice to see both men being proactive.

The UE's clarification of Africa was also nice, and the extra footage really made the movie more coherent. The extra Clark moments which should've been kept in the TC work, though he's still too quiet. I do like that they helped crystallize Clark's arc, in which he struggles to accept his place in the world and ultimately decides to overcome those who hate him to do what is right.

The Knightmare and the videos are still dumb. They should've been the first things cut for the TC because they are so superfluous. Martha moment - eh, I get what they were going for, but the dialogue should not have hung so much on the name, rather than Batman realizing he's gone too far. Batman is also still super dumb to me - I will never understand his reasoning to kill Superman, and no rational person should. If anything, the logical solution would just have been develop deterrents. But the dude straight up wants to commit murder, which should've been a goal that develops later, if they wanted to go in that direction.

What bothers me even more though is how the UE is surprisingly interesting for its first half, then falls apart during the climax. It just collapses on itself when Martha gets kidnapped. Lex's plan just has too many layers - Martha held hostage, Lois used to lure Superman back, Batman used to kill Superman, then Doomsday unleashed when Batman fails. It would've been so much easier for Lex to set up a battle both men would be willing to fight, and in the UE it's obvious to see Superman would have no problem throwing down with Batman.

The Martha element was not needed, and was definitely not an integral component for Bruce to see the error of his ways. The Capitol bombing should've been the catalyst for both heroes thinking the other was responsible. That would give them a real reason to fight.