BvS The BvS Ultimate Cut Thread - Part 2

[gdw]

So, Batman realizes that Superman has a mother after Lois explains it? You're forgetting the part where Batman talks about Superman's parents earlier on in the movie. And he still wanted to kill Superman. It's first when he learns that their mothers shared the same name that he reconsiders. So your interpretation falls apart. And I never said that the name alone is the thing that makes Batman reconsider.

Oy, as someone else said:

Batman's taunting came from a position of detachment. It was obvious he had no idea the full truth about Superman. Of course, Batman knew Superman had parents because everyone has parents. What Batman didn't know was who those parents were. They could have been two dead people from another world he would never know.

Batman had othered Superman so much in his mind in order to rationalize his actions that he had to view his parents with the same detachment and as individuals complicit in stoking Superman's hubris. In other words, Batman's perception of Clark's parents was an abstraction that he could project onto whatever justified his own paranoia and violence.

When Bruce hears Clark call for his mother, Martha, then that abstract mother has a name. She's real, and she's not only real, but she needs her son's help. Batman sees that his actions -- killing Superman -- would be stealing a son from his mother and a mother from her son. The immediacy, closeness, and intimacy of the moment clarified the abstraction into something real. He was able to connect in a way he wasn't able to before.

ETA: The above analysis of the "Martha" moment is, of course, only part of what serves as a catalyst for change in Bruce in the scene. The fact that the image in front of him mirrors the image of his dying parents with him in the role of the shooter makes him the villain of his own nightmares.

 

[gdw]

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

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

How is that any different than saying that 'since Clark knew Bruce Wayne's name, it's a given that he'd know what he looks like?'

I think that, showing a passing reference to Bruce's parent's murder during Clark's investigation would have been fine, and far from spelling something out. Now, if Clark actually said something about it, and that being the reason why he called for his mother by name, THAT would be spelling it out.

A passing reference during Clark's research into Batman, and subsequently, Bruce Wayne, would make sense in the context of the film already, and show us that he definitely figured out Bruce was Batman at the party, while also setting up the titular fights resolution. It also would have added to Clark's character as an investigative journalist, as he looks even deeper into the background of the man he's investigating.

 

[gdw]

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

In which cut? I believe in the TC, they were separated, but in the UE, it makes sense that he's in the same clothes, IIRC.

 

[Whatupman]

Oy, as someone else said:

This is just going in circles now. We got a different meaning from that scene, and I don't think that's gonna change. But when so many people find the scene illogical, you have to realize that something failed in the execution. I doubt that the makers of the movie wanted a large part of the audience to feel like they don't understand the characters, and that means that the film makers failed. It's the film makers job to make the character's motivations clear. It's that simple really.

 

[gdw]

I've always said this, Superman in this universe is a reactive character even more so in MoS. And Whatupman is right, it makes so sense for batman to realise that Superman has a mother when beforehand he was taunting Supes about his parents. It doesn't work.

Again, it's not that Bruce did not know he had genetic predecessors. He's not an imbecile.
It's that it made his mother a real person, and also a HUMAN person. Not just long dead genetic donors from his home planet that Bruce had dehumanized in his mind just as much as he had Superman. It made it tangible for Bruce, not just an abstract concept he had demonized in his head.
Again, also made her a person who was alive, for now, and would die as a direct result of Bruce's actions at that point.

It's not JUST that he has a mother. It's not JUST that her name is Martha. Those are the incidentals of the scene.

 

[gdw]

OR.....they wanted to understand it, and they did understand it, but they came to a different conclusion and so have a different OPINION about it than you do.

Then they would be describing the same thing, just disagreeing with whether or not it was good. However that's NOT what has happened. I haven't heard that from a SINGLE person.

Every single one has been a blatant misrepresentation of the scene, reducing it to the scene from Step Brothers, and nothing more. That would be precisely the opposite of understanding the scene.

 

[gdw]

This is just going in circles now. We got a different meaning from that scene, and I don't think that's gonna change. But when so many people find the scene illogical, you have to realize that something failed in the execution. I doubt that the makers of the movie wanted a large part of the audience to feel like they don't understand the characters, and that means that the film makers failed. It's the film makers job to make the character's motivations clear. It's that simple really.

We absolutely are going in circles, but it's NOT a matter of getting a different meaning from the scene at this point.

 

[Whatupman]

We absolutely are going in circles, but it's NOT a matter of getting a different meaning from the scene at this point.

I think it's telling that you didn't address the second part that I was talking about.

 

[gdw]

I think it's telling that you didn't address the second part that I was talking about.

Um, it's telling that I didn't really address ANYTHING you said, because I'm done. This is beyond pointless.

 

[NeoRanger]

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

Well yeah, if you take the scene in isolation and with the definition you provided, he's clearly passive.

What I wanted to point out was that the scene doesn't work in isolation and also to challenge (?) the terminology, in the sense that it would be different if he was actually having a vision instead of a conversation with himself and he was being reactionary to someone else's whims and desires-- which doesn't happen here (and in fact the literal opposite happens).

But in the way you put it, sure, he's passive.

 

[elgaz]

Choosing to have Clark experience his introspective moment on a snow-covered mountain wasn't meaningless, and wasn't accidental either.

Superman's first appearance in MOS, when he emerged from the ship/FOS for the first time wearing the blue and red suit bearing his family crest, was on a windy, snow-covered mountain. The sky was clear, the sun was shining down on him and he drank it in, relishing the power it gave his body. Clark had just found out his true heritage, all the questions he had had since he could walk and talk were answered, and (as evidenced by his smiling reveal to Martha later) he was pretty happy about this. We hear his biological's father voice in his mind.

This was, in essence, Superman's birth, and what followed was a joyous discovery of his ability to fly.

Snyder turned that scene upside down in Batman V Superman. It's 18 months later, and Clark's joy has turned into confusion and angst as he questions whether the world wants or needs him at all. He feels that being 'Superman' has been nothing more than a pipe dream his father had. Instead of flying which he could easily do, he slowly walks like a human to the peak of a windy, snow covered mountain. He is dressed in normal human clothing (for no good reason), suggesting some question of rejecting his Kryptonian side, and his inner anxiety is written across his face. This mountain is darkened by a dull and overcast sky, with no sunshine breaking through. We see his Earth father through his eyes.

Snyder kept the same isolated background, but in many other ways the two mountain scenes are polar opposites. I thought it was a very clever touch, and the sense of familiarity being skewered by the darker and bleaker tone/aesthetic, coupled with the contrasting acceptance/rejection of his Kryptonian side, only heightens the impact of Clark's depressive thoughts as his dreams of acceptance on Earth start to unravel.

Yes, Clark could have had that internal dialogue with his father anywhere, but by returning to a place very similar to where he was 'born' as Superman, it makes the scene more powerful.

 

[elgaz]

On a sidenote, I see it also a nice node to Superman II which is a film where Clark also walks alone along a snow-covered route to the FOS after rejecting his Kryptonian side.

 

[idiot09]

Choosing to have Clark experience his introspective moment on a snow-covered mountain wasn't meaningless, and wasn't accidental either.

Superman's first appearance in MOS, when he emerged from the ship/FOS for the first time wearing the blue and red suit bearing his family crest, was on a windy, snow-covered mountain. The sky was clear, the sun was shining down on him and he drank it in, relishing the power it gave his body. Clark had just found out his true heritage, all the questions he had had since he could walk and talk were answered, and (as evidenced by his smiling reveal to Martha later) he was pretty happy about this. We hear his biological's father voice in his mind.

This was, in essence, Superman's birth, and what followed was a joyous discovery of his ability to fly.

Snyder turned that scene upside down in Batman V Superman. It's 18 months later, and Clark's joy has turned into confusion and angst as he questions whether the world wants or needs him at all. He feels that being 'Superman' has been nothing more than a pipe dream his father had. Instead of flying which he could easily do, he slowly walks like a human to the peak of a windy, snow covered mountain. He is dressed in normal human clothing (for no good reason), suggesting some question of rejecting his Kryptonian side, and his inner anxiety is written across his face. This mountain is darkened by a dull and overcast sky, with no sunshine breaking through. We see his Earth father through his eyes.

Snyder kept the same isolated background, but in many other ways the two mountain scenes are polar opposites. I thought it was a very clever touch, and the sense of familiarity being skewered by the darker and bleaker tone/aesthetic, coupled with the contrasting acceptance/rejection of his Kryptonian side, only heightens the impact of Clark's depressive thoughts as his dreams of acceptance on Earth start to unravel.

Yes, Clark could have had that internal dialogue with his father anywhere, but by returning to a place very similar to where he was 'born' as Superman, it makes the scene more powerful.

Well noted.Didnt catch that before

 

[gdw]

Choosing to have Clark experience his introspective moment on a snow-covered mountain wasn't meaningless, and wasn't accidental either.

Superman's first appearance in MOS, when he emerged from the ship/FOS for the first time wearing the blue and red suit bearing his family crest, was on a windy, snow-covered mountain. The sky was clear, the sun was shining down on him and he drank it in, relishing the power it gave his body. Clark had just found out his true heritage, all the questions he had had since he could walk and talk were answered, and (as evidenced by his smiling reveal to Martha later) he was pretty happy about this. We hear his biological's father voice in his mind.

This was, in essence, Superman's birth, and what followed was a joyous discovery of his ability to fly.

Snyder turned that scene upside down in Batman V Superman. It's 18 months later, and Clark's joy has turned into confusion and angst as he questions whether the world wants or needs him at all. He feels that being 'Superman' has been nothing more than a pipe dream his father had. Instead of flying which he could easily do, he slowly walks like a human to the peak of a windy, snow covered mountain. He is dressed in normal human clothing (for no good reason), suggesting some question of rejecting his Kryptonian side, and his inner anxiety is written across his face. This mountain is darkened by a dull and overcast sky, with no sunshine breaking through. We see his Earth father through his eyes.

Snyder kept the same isolated background, but in many other ways the two mountain scenes are polar opposites. I thought it was a very clever touch, and the sense of familiarity being skewered by the darker and bleaker tone/aesthetic, coupled with the contrasting acceptance/rejection of his Kryptonian side, only heightens the impact of Clark's depressive thoughts as his dreams of acceptance on Earth start to unravel.

Yes, Clark could have had that internal dialogue with his father anywhere, but by returning to a place very similar to where he was 'born' as Superman, it makes the scene more powerful.

On a sidenote, I see it also a nice node to Superman II which is a film where Clark also walks alone along a snow-covered route to the FOS after rejecting his Kryptonian side.

Damn, every time I read someone else's insights like this, I'm blown away by how good of a story teller/film maker Snyder actually is.

As much as I liked MOS, and LOVED BvS (Ultimate Edition,) I've always maintained that Snyder was still one of the weakest links. I still think he brings a lot to the table that is the source of the contention over these films, and what he brings to them is often very much what makes them divisive, but there's FAR more understanding in it than people who criticize the films grant him.
Hell, my entire point is that there's far more understanding and subtlety in his work than I, as a fan of the films, grant him.

 

[Whatupman]

That was very well put, elgaz. I was only saying that it was meaningless when talking about if he's active or passive. The mountain does carry symbolic value, but his development comes from within.

 

[DeadStroke]

Interesting Wayne connection in the EW article..

 

[gdw]

That was very well put, elgaz. I was only saying that it was meaningless when talking about if he's active or passive. The mountain does carry symbolic value, but his development comes from within.

Honestly, I don't even remember why that was this topic of discussion, lol.

Interesting Wayne connection in the EW article..

Wayne connection?

 

[DeadStroke]

Honestly, I don't even remember why that was this topic of discussion, lol.



Wayne connection?

This..

Thanks for sharing this.

Interesting that Wayne Ent. developed those tiny explosives, by the way... I thought they didn't deal in arms.

 

[Lily Adler]

Its Like They Edited The Film To Make Superman Look Bad

- not telling us the wheelchair bomb was laced with led

- not showing superman rescuing people to safety after the blast and handing them to paramedics

- that phone call to his mom gave him humanity and relatability that through all the hate he confides in his mom for advice

- showing him in gotham talking to people and feeling concern for the public

- more clark kent in the daily planet

- showing the public that criticized him accepting him and mourning his death with a candlelight vigil

I want to kiss him to make him feel better.

 

[gdw]

This..

Ah, thanks.

 

[Flint Marko]

Choosing to have Clark experience his introspective moment on a snow-covered mountain wasn't meaningless, and wasn't accidental either.

Superman's first appearance in MOS, when he emerged from the ship/FOS for the first time wearing the blue and red suit bearing his family crest, was on a windy, snow-covered mountain. The sky was clear, the sun was shining down on him and he drank it in, relishing the power it gave his body. Clark had just found out his true heritage, all the questions he had had since he could walk and talk were answered, and (as evidenced by his smiling reveal to Martha later) he was pretty happy about this. We hear his biological's father voice in his mind.

This was, in essence, Superman's birth, and what followed was a joyous discovery of his ability to fly.

Snyder turned that scene upside down in Batman V Superman. It's 18 months later, and Clark's joy has turned into confusion and angst as he questions whether the world wants or needs him at all. He feels that being 'Superman' has been nothing more than a pipe dream his father had. Instead of flying which he could easily do, he slowly walks like a human to the peak of a windy, snow covered mountain. He is dressed in normal human clothing (for no good reason), suggesting some question of rejecting his Kryptonian side, and his inner anxiety is written across his face. This mountain is darkened by a dull and overcast sky, with no sunshine breaking through. We see his Earth father through his eyes.

Snyder kept the same isolated background, but in many other ways the two mountain scenes are polar opposites. I thought it was a very clever touch, and the sense of familiarity being skewered by the darker and bleaker tone/aesthetic, coupled with the contrasting acceptance/rejection of his Kryptonian side, only heightens the impact of Clark's depressive thoughts as his dreams of acceptance on Earth start to unravel.

Yes, Clark could have had that internal dialogue with his father anywhere, but by returning to a place very similar to where he was 'born' as Superman, it makes the scene more powerful.

I strongly suspect Snyder went with the snow-covered mountain simply because it looked cool as opposed to any sort of tenuous thematic connection to the previous film.

 

[gdw]

I strongly suspect Snyder went with the snow-covered mountain simply because it looked cool as opposed to any sort of tenuous thematic connection to the previous film.

Considering the number of times people have pointed out Snyder doing exactly this kind of mirroring, both within a film, and reflecting the previous film, strongly suggest otherwise.

There are a multitude of scenes with not only mirrored settings, but framing and editing/pacing. Look at Jor-el's death at the hands of Zod, then compare to Kal-el's death by the same (albeit mutated) hands. Not just the stabbing, but the way it plays out, the shots, editing, and composing, all have multiple parallels. Either clearly intentional, or Snyder's films are just riddled with insanely coincidental moments like this.

Snyder is very much a visual story teller. That does not mean someone who is obsessed with visuals that just look cool. It means that the visuals are rich with storytelling. In other words, the visuals are very intentionally chosen for specific story reasons. Exactly the kind of story telling that would include the above.

 

[misslane38]

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

Huh? I think you're confused. The exchange, part of which you quoted in this response to me, wasn't about an addition that would have fixed a plot hole. It was about something a person thought would enhance the film in a way that they would have liked. Nothing is being rationalized.

Furthermore, it isn't a stretch to think that Superman would have said "Martha" instead of "Mom" not only because Bruce wouldn't know who to look for, not knowing who Superman's mom was, but also because Clark knew Batman was Bruce and could've potentially been using the name for an additional purpose. Notice that I said additional purpose. The first purpose (giving Batman a name to use to find Superman's mother) is sufficient and not something which requires stretching at all.

What requires stretching, to me, are the actions of people who are bending over backward to complain about things being unclear or begging for an unnecessarily pedantic and didactic script. It's nitpicking of the highest order.

 

[misslane38]

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

An active character can, at times, be passive. I posted a quote from a writer's advice blog two days ago that clearly spelled this out.

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.

No human being or character is active at all times. Active characters will often engage in passive activities, yet those passive activities do not undermine an overall active characterization. Clark made an active choice to engage in a passive activity in order to serve his overall goal as an active character, and this passive activity is what allowed him to make a choice that initiated further active characterization.

Your original claim was that Superman was a dull character who lacked dimension. I discussed the Jonathan scene as a means of showing how such a scene revealed character. Your response was that this characterization was passive, as though its passivity was somehow a cause for the character's dullness and flatness in your estimation.

Does the fact that Clark chooses to respond to the Capitol bombing by questioning whether his continued work as Superman does more harm than good, and ultimately choosing to take a break to contemplate any final decision, add to his character or detract from it? Does it make Superman a richer and more interesting character to know that in his darkest moments, he is able to, and most comfortable recalling, the wisdom of dead human father? Is it revealing and compelling to see that it is love that drives Superman to hope and continue his fight?

Your assessment of Superman in both Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was that he was a boring character who had no personality. Do scenes like the one with Clark atop a snowy mountain thinking of his father's wisdom do nothing to alter your assessment? Or, in your opinion, can a character only have an entertaining and engaging personality if that character is active at all times?

 

[gdw]

Of course, that doesn't mean that every example of parallels like this were meticulously planned, and intentional. Some likely are coincidences, however such "happy accidents" are fundamental building blocks of art. The artist's skill is in recognizing/not dismissing them.