BvS The BvS Ultimate Cut Thread - Part 2

[Consona]

Just watching the Lex BTS and in it he says, "ancient kryptonian deformity, obeys only me, born to destroy you!"
WHY THE HELL DID THEY GET RID OF "obeys only me"?!!!!

Yea, they clearly wanted to go the more ambiguous path (with the film overall), which seems a majority of people cannot stomach and interpret.

 

[steve4991]

So I watched the UE over the weekend...

And actually, I refuse to call it the "Ultimate Edition" considering this is Batman v Superman the way it was originally made. So to me, I watched Batman v Superman in it's original form. Let me just say this: This is a MASSIVE comic book film, almost unlike any other. There is still a lot to pay attention to and I lot of story. But in this cut of the film, it's all relevant.

I felt like the improved North Africa scene and Bruce's perspective in Metropolis were all it needed to set up and lead up to the actions that followed. There wasn't much jumping around because all of dots (scenes) were connected this time. It was very well done for a three hour film. I understood much, much more this time. This is my favorite CBM of all time.


Thank you, Mr. Snyder.

 

[AnneFan]

And actually, I refuse to call it the "Ultimate Edition" considering this is Batman v Superman the way it was originally made. So to me, I watched Batman v Superman in it's original form.

Indeed. Almost to the point I wish the Ultimate Edition tagline wasn't added to the opening title sequence.

 

[idiot09]

So I watched the UE over the weekend...

And actually, I refuse to call it the "Ultimate Edition" considering this is Batman v Superman the way it was originally made. So to me, I watched Batman v Superman in it's original form. Let me just say this: This is a MASSIVE comic book film, almost unlike any other. There is still a lot to pay attention to and I lot of story. But in this cut of the film, it's all relevant.

I felt like the improved North Africa scene and Bruce's perspective in Metropolis were all it needed to set up and lead up to the actions that followed. There wasn't much jumping around because all of dots (scenes) were connected this time. It was very well done for a three hour film. I understood much, much more this time. This is my favorite CBM of all time.


Thank you, Mr. Snyder.

Absolutely.And it makes sense,because this was the cut Snyder wanted to release.It just feels complete.

And it just feels so much like a cbm with all the different threads converging at a point and then ending with an amazing comicbooky fight.I really liked how they saved all the action at the end.I felt the payoff to be much more satisfying.

 

[Predator jp]

I agree. It pains me that the 4K Blu-ray combo pack comes with jus the UE on the 4K disc and the TC on the Blu-ray. I'm trying to upgrade but I don't have a 4K tv or player yet, WB! At least I have it digitally, but releasing the TC is just pointless.

hmm, interesting. Japanese Blu-ray set comes with
4K UE BD
2K UE BD
2K 3D TC BD
2K TC BD
so it covers everyting.

 

[Mr. Forest]

hmm, interesting. Japanese Blu-ray set comes with
4K UE BD
2K UE BD
2K 3D TC BD
2K TC BD
so it covers everyting.

That's how it should be.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

So I watched the UC 3 times.

I think the only 3 things that would have really worth it's place in the TC is the flame thrower on the corpses in Africa + when Clark interogate the branded guy's wife with her baby and lex with stephenwolf

The flamethrower to me explains enough to validate the Africa scenario in the TC (and who cares if the black woman is for real or not, Sups look bad anyway)

The wife pass a point across that resonate in Clark that he need to send a message to Batman as Superman (with physicality)

The communion scene to give just enough hint on what Lex rant about when he's in prison

So basically , add 3 minutes to the TC and you're good IMO.

Not good enough.

Seeing Superman carry a wounded person out of the capitol did SO much for his character for me after that explosion scene.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Absolutely.And it makes sense,because this was the cut Snyder wanted to release.It just feels complete.

And it just feels so much like a cbm with all the different threads converging at a point and then ending with an amazing comicbooky fight.I really liked how they saved all the action at the end.I felt the payoff to be much more satisfying.

Agreed, the character arcs are great and the death of Superman still resonates with me even now, I almost cried during that scene.

Those people who don't like this movie because it has no humor,I don't know what to say really because I find it rather difficult to incorporate humor when the movie is about Batman fighting Superman where the stakes are real and personally I liked Perry White and Alfred's snide remarks and sarcasms because it didn't seem out of place to me.

 

[PeterBenParker]

Spoiler

Killing off Jimmy Olsen was a pretty bad decision.

 

[NeoRanger]

Spoiler

Killing off Jimmy Olsen was a pretty bad decision.

It's a pretty easy fix, if we get another solo Superman movie and they want the character in. CIA agents -I assume- typically don't go in undercover missions using their real name. They throw this Jimmy out as an agent using real Jimmy's credentials and everything's a-ok. Logical, even.

 

[Ovech-king]

Not good enough.

Seeing Superman carry a wounded person out of the capitol did SO much for his character for me after that explosion scene.

Yeah I know but I meant that they could have improved a lot of people disastifaction with ''what's going on'' in the TC with only 3 minutes out of 30

There was some very agressive cuts in that 30 minutes when you find out what's really relevant in the extra 30 to help the movie make sense to general public

 

[Logan0327]

Spoiler

Killing off Jimmy Olsen was a pretty bad decision.

i had no problem with it since he wasn't anything like jimmy olsen personality or looks wise

he wasn't portrayed as a jimmy i would want working with clark and lois he was a bit too cocky and arrogant

 

[Micromind]

i had no problem with it since he wasn't anything like jimmy olsen personality or looks wise

he wasn't portrayed as a jimmy i would want working with clark and lois he was a bit too cocky and arrogant

He was JINO.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

I think all Snyder characters in this were INOs. Except Lois Lane.

 

[The Shape]

He was JINO.

Yup, except unlike most of the other "INO" characters for CBMs, he was literally meant to be Jimmy "in name only" for shock value.

 

[Sleiek]

I think all Snyder characters in this were INOs. Except Lois Lane.

You forgot the sarcasm smiley.

 

[Binker]

 

[Broseph44]

^ hahaha yesss

 

[chintai80]

that scene of superman showing up randomly to threaten batman in the TC made superman come off as kind of a jerk.
it made him look like he was provoking a fight.

but reading about how the UE shows superman investigating about batman in gotham forming his opinion (with lex manipulating things all the more), has the scene make more sense now.

i'm looking forward to the ultimate cut!
waiting for my blu ray to come in.

 

[Logan0327]

that scene of superman showing up randomly to threaten batman in the TC made superman come off as kind of a jerk.
it made him look like he was provoking a fight.

but reading about how the UE shows superman investigating about batman in gotham forming his opinion (with lex manipulating things all the more), has the scene make more sense now.

i'm looking forward to the ultimate cut!
waiting for my blu ray to come in.

yes we see him go to gotham twice and he talks to the girlfriend of the guy batman branded and she says words wont stop the batman only fists will before he stops the batmobile

 

[chintai80]

yes we see him go to gotham twice and he talks to the girlfriend of the guy batman branded and she says words wont stop the batman only fists will before he stops the batmobile

yes, see i don't get why stuff like this was cut out of the TC.
these are crucial character/story moments.

 

[Sundancer]

So I never saw the theatrical....


1. So did Lex deduce Clark was Supes and Bruce was Batman pre-movie?

2. Kahina Ziri--the woman that got killed by being shoved in front of a subway--where did she live? She had an apartment she hadn't been to in Gotham but I thought she was in Africa during the opening events?

 

[KillerMcQueen]

So I never saw the theatrical....


1. So did Lex deduce Clark was Supes and Bruce was Batman pre-movie?

2. Kahina Ziri--the woman that got killed by being shoved in front of a subway--where did she live? She had an apartment she hadn't been to in Gotham but I thought she was in Africa during the opening events?

I presume Lex knew both identities before the non-flashback events of BvS, he did go out of his way to invite both Bruce and Clark to his event early in the film.

As far as I could tell it seemed like Kahina wasn't even there in Africa, her entire story was a lie created by Lex with her being payed off/threatened, I'm guessing she moved to the city after the events in Africa.

 

[misslane38]

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.

It does develop Bruce. The Knightmare sequence shows us how his mental state is influencing his decisions. How a character thinks is an important part of character development. The Knightmare is, in my view, a cinematic equivalent of a theatrical soliloquy. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about soliloquies:

Shakespeare’s soliloquies contain some of his most original and powerful writing. Possibly prompted by the essays of Montaigne, he explores in his greatest tragedies the way someone wrestles with their private thoughts under pressure, often failing to perceive the flaws in their own thinking, as in the great galloping I-vii soliloquy (‘if ‘twere done when ‘tis done…’) in which Macbeth unconsciously reveals through his imagery his fear of damnation but fails to realise what really holds him back from murdering his king: simply the fact that it is wrong.​

The part that stands out to me is "the way someone wrestles with their own private thoughts under pressure, often failing to perceive the flaws in their own thinking." Bruce's dream is a film version of a theatrical soliloquy. Since it would be odd for Bruce to break the fourth wall and speak to us or talk to himself, a dream provides the same window into his thoughts and feelings. Most importantly, it reveals the flaws in his thinking, and thus the tragedy inherent in the character.

Perhaps, for you, this sort of character work is "the worst," which I can't say is a position that I can agree with or understand.

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.

Nothing would happen? The second one of Clark's bullies tried to fight back and land a real punch on him, he would not only see that Clark doesn't bleed, but he would surely feel the pain of a human fist hitting a steel jaw. The struggle isn't just about revealing one's true self either. Anyone who has been bullied knows that fighting back by doing to the bully what has been done to you isn't best course of action.

Clark: I wanted to hit that kid. I wanted to hit him bad.
Jonathan: I know you did. I mean...part of me even wanted you to, but then what? Make you feel any better?​

A good person, even in the face of brutality, looks for another way to solve problems before allowing a cycle of violence -- emotional or physical -- to continue.

Jonathan: You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Because whoever that man is, good character or bad, he's gonna change the world.​

The choice Clark faces is what type of man he wants to be: does he want to be a man who will bully a bully or does he want to be a man who wants to create positive change?

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.

In Man of Steel, Jonathan's lecture to Clark about being cautious about revealing himself directly follows a visit from Pete Ross and his mother who declared Clark's efforts to save his classmates on the bus as "an act of God." It's a hint that those who merely suspect the truth about Clark may deify him. Clark is a young teen, and his father is rightly concerned that a boy being treated like a god isn't exactly a fate to be embraced with open arms. Most importantly, however, it's not about whether the risk is real or not. The point is that Clark is a young boy who is confused about who he is and resentful that he cannot be himself. It doesn't matter if Jonathan's fears for his son are unfounded because those fears still shape Clark's attitudes and behaviors. So, for Clark, it is a struggle because he's a child who believes in his dad, or he at least understands that it's important to make decisions that don't generate conflict within his family.

Your primary concern and complaint was that Clark lacked character. The fact that he struggles to be himself or is worried about being his true self due to real or imagined consequences tells us something about him. That Clark is willing to accept his father's cynical predictions about the world tells us about Clark's character. Choices and conflicts don't have to be entirely real in order to be character forming. What matters is whether those conflicts are meaningful for the character. For Clark, having a father who fears the worst about the world, causes him to conform or adopt those same fears -- real or not. Therefore, when Clark is in a position to act or be his true self, a genuine struggle does exist within him that reveals his character.

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?

No, it means someone trying to punch Clark in the chest, and the impact breaking someone's hand or arm.

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.

Why wouldn't he be happy? Up until that point, there was no time when Clark seemed happy to be different or special. Having x-ray vision and superhearing as a child didn't bring a smile to his face, so why would flying be any different? The shift from fearing his powers to embracing them is a big deal for this character. Also, when you think about the differences between Clark's other powers and flying, you realize that flight is different because it is an ability -- a part of himself -- that Clark can indulge in without fear of discovery. The fact that both you and Clark would have the same response to the ability to fly says something about both of you.

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.

You are twisting my words. I did not saying anything about Clark's interactions with Jor-El in the scout ship allowing Clark to become the man he always wanted to be. I said that Clark's experience of learning about his origins and experimenting with his new powers was welcomed with joy, which was a contrast to Clark's previous state of repression. I'm saying that it says a lot about Clark that learning more about his alien heritage made him happy rather than cause him to become even more closed off and despondent. It's not about Clark becoming anything. Clark didn't become Superman after he spoke to the AI of Jor-El. It takes a threat from Zod and some anxious moments in a church before Clark is ready to take a leap of faith with the rest of the world watching. It's about taking note of how Clark responded to identifying himself even more clearly as an alien with incredible power. He finds peace in knowing more about himself even if he still can't share it with the rest of the world.

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.

I thought the film set up Clark's dilemma well.

Jor-El: We wanted you to learn what it meant to be human first, so that one day, when the time was right, you could be the bridge between two peoples.
Clark: Look. Lois
Jor-El: You can save her, Kal. You can save all of them.​

Clark: Mom, Zod said this Codex he's looking for can bring my people back.
Martha: Isn't that a good thing?
Clark: I don't think they're interested in sharing this world.​

Jor-El: Stop this, Zod, while there's still time.
Zod: Haven't given up lecturing me, have you, even in death?
Jor-El: I will not let you use the Codex like this.
Jor-El: Our people can co-exist.
Zod: So we can suffer through years of pain trying to adapt like your son has?
Jor-El: You're talking about genocide.
Zod: Yes. And I'm arguing its merits with a ghost.
Jor-El: We're both ghosts, Zod. Can't you see that? The Krypton you're clinging onto is gone.
Zod: Ship, have you managed to quarantine this invasive intelligence?
Jor-El: You'll fail.
Ship: I have.
Zod: Then prepare to terminate it. I'm tired of this debate.
Jor-El: Silencing me won't change anything. My son is twice the man you were. And he will finish what we started. I can promise you that.

Zod: If you destroy this ship, you destroy Krypton!
Clark: Krypton had its chance.

Zod: We could have built a new Krypton in this squalor. But you chose the humans over us. I exist only to protect Krypton.​

Sending the Kryptonians away to the Phantom Zone and killing Zod represented the end of Jor-El's dream for his son and for Krypton's legacy on Earth. Of course, when Clark sees that Zod is clearly not interested in any sort of diplomatic solution, he must choose Earth over Krypton, but that doesn't mean it is a decision that sits easily with him. In the midst of battle, there's scarcely time for Clark to contemplate or mourn the death of his father's dream for a bridge between Kryptonians and humans, but when he kills Zod, the grief pours out of him. What other hero would weep at his own victory?

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.

Man of Steel gives us a Clark whose dominant character arc is about belonging and acceptance. A romantic arc that serves as that bridge between Earth and Krypton. When Lara sent her son across the stars, she worried that her special son would be an outcast. Clark is first embraced by the Kents as a child, but finding love with Lois represents Clark's ability to replicate a new bond as an adult.

Oh, and I definitely saw the chemistry. It was there during their first interview...

on the tarmac of the military base when they held hands, and he tells her to stand back, and she smiles....

and when they flew together towards the Smallville cornfield.

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

The film firmly established that Clark would ideally find a way to be a bridge between Krypton and Earth, and that being that bridge would be his way of fulfilling his father's legacy for him and his home world. Clark was devastated that his people had no interest in sharing, and it came pouring out after the rush of battle was over and Zod was dead.

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.

Clark's selfishness is justified. If Clark believes someone like Batman is making things worse for heroes like him, then that's a problem that doesn't just affect Clark. It is abundantly apparent, to the point that I cannot comprehend how you could miss it, that Clark does not start out pursuing the Batman. He first goes to Gotham to speak to the Nairomi woman who blames him for the deaths in her village. When he cannot find her, he is alerted to the fear ordinary people in Gotham feel because the Batman is "hunting." Clark's determination to take on Batman is deepened even more after he speaks to the wife/girlfriend of the criminal allegedly killed because of his Bat-branded chest. Clark sees a vigilante using his power to trample on the civil liberties of underprivileged people, and he sees this as a living example of the false accusations he is enduring. Maybe people don't believe heroes can be good because they've never had one who stayed that way? Is it selfish to want people to believe in heroes and in hope because you represent both? Absolutely. Is it a selfishness that also ultimately benefits others? Yes, it is.

When Matt Murdock is called out for his selfishness it is because his indulgence in his own heroic pursuits, though intended to affect positive change in Hell's Kitchen, do not prevent him from failing his own friends and their separate attempts to make a difference. There is no evidence that Clark pursuing his Batman story is hurting anyone. The only person who it seems to disadvantage or hurt is Perry White who wants his sports page. Perry White repeatedly calls Clark out on his selfish behavior.

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?

Good characters are not active all the time. Characters, like real people, take time to think about their choices and deal with the consequences of those choices. How a character or real person makes choices or responds to the effects of their choices reveal a lot about character. Clark responds to his failure to stop Wallace Keefe's bomb at the Capitol by questioning whether Superman, as a concept, does more harm than good. Are the potential benefits worth the risks? He decides to take a break from being Superman to return to his roots as a lonely traveler, and he communes with the memory of his father for counsel. It says something about Clark that his response to the Capital bombing is quiet contemplation and the memories of his father. Another person might have responded by fighting back, taking control, or something more active. It seems to me that you discount passivity as a character trait. For you, the only real personality is an active personality, which is utter nonsense. There are people who have personalities that lean towards passivity more than activity, and sometimes a passive response is not an inherently weak response. Acting out in the face of difficulty is no more admirable than taking a step back to think about what one does next. As a film, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice presents Superman's antagonists as those who see him as someone who acts carelessly or selfishly. Therefore, it matters that we see he responds to their judgment with thoughtfulness. It is an active choice to choose to remove oneself from a crucible in order to prevent an explosion.

A writer offers this advice about active vs. passive characterization:

When conflict pushes against my characters, they have choices. They can push back, or they can fall down. Or they can run away and hide where the pushing can’t reach them anymore. (I mean, that’s only normal, right?) It’s okay if my characters react to the plot with fear or doubt that makes them crawl into a hole for the sake of self-preservation. They just can’t stay in the hole. They can react, but they also have to act. They need to make a difference in the story, and not just let the story make a difference in them.​

Note that the writer insists that is okay for a character to react with fear, doubt, and retreat as long as they don't stay that way. The just can't stay in the hole, or in Clark's case, on the top of a mountain. Clark could have let the Capitol bombing put an end to Superman for good, but his decision to take some time to think through what happens next, allows him to choose to return to the world as Superman to make a difference.

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.

Superman doesn't jump into the fight. He is attacked, and he defends himself. After trying to speak with Batman ("Bruce, please, you have to listen to me, Lex wants..."), Superman tries to use minimal force to subdue Batman in order to engage in additional attempts to talk to him ("If I wanted it, you'd be dead already."). Superman tries to end the fight without deadly force, but he's either subdued by Batman's kryptonite, or the fight reaches a point of no return at which Superman loses hope that there's any way to reason with Bruce at all. For him, maybe the only way to save Martha will be to kill the Bat who has so clearly lost his way that he won't even listen to reason.

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.

It's crazy to not murder someone?!? Bruce was on the brink of complete moral collapse, and had made himself into a mechanized and soulless killing machine that wouldn't even listen to a man who only came to him to ask for help, but he is able to pull himself back from the brink because he remembers his own history and his own humanity. That is the very definition of coming back to one's senses!

 

[Broseph44]

So I never saw the theatrical....


1. So did Lex deduce Clark was Supes and Bruce was Batman pre-movie?

2. Kahina Ziri--the woman that got killed by being shoved in front of a subway--where did she live? She had an apartment she hadn't been to in Gotham but I thought she was in Africa during the opening events?

Not to sound rude. But if you can't figure out an explanation for these even from watching the Ultimate Edition. You might wanna think harder.