BvS The BvS Ultimate Cut Thread - Part 2

[misslane38]

"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?'

Sometimes you can just know a person based on what you hear or read people saying about them (versus having seen them in pictures or video footage) or not recognize because you haven't stayed up to date on them. Martha Wayne being Bruce Wayne's mother who famously was murdered is something that Clark could have lodged in his memory along with an image of Bruce as a young boy. Once he discovers Bruce is Batman, that bit of trivia would assert itself because of its relevance. Or it is super easy to conclude that Clark is a smart and resourceful guy who would learn a bit more about Bruce Wayne once he learns that he's the Batman he's been investigating. I don't think there needed to be screentime wasted on something so boring and implicit, especially since this issue only came up because someone said it would have been a nice enhancement as opposed to a necessary narrative beat to fill in a plot hole.

Let me repeat. There is no plot hole. The issue was why did Superman say "Martha" instead of "Mom." Understanding that Bruce wouldn't know what mom to save, not knowing Superman was Clark, makes it obvious why Superman wouldn't just say "mom" or "mother." I only suggested that there could be an added motivation and layer if Clark also already knew that Bruce's mother's name was Martha, too. In other words, Clark knowing Bruce's mother's name was Martha is not needed to explain a plot point.

I don't understand this need to make things more complicated than they have to be and then demand that the film smooth out the complications that viewers themselves invent. It's madness.

 

[misslane38]

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.

If what you and "so many people" got out of the scene was something that was not there at all, then how is it the fault of the film? The writing, directing, and acting all show that Bruce is angered by the name "Martha" and only puts down his spear when he learns that "Martha" is the name of Superman's mother who needs help. It is so simple, yet is so misinterpreted that it seems to be some sort of willful misrepresentation.

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

 

[The Endless]

It's an improvement for sure. It's just baffling that so many IMPORTANT Superman/Clark moments were cut. Especially the scene at Congress. Why cut Superman sticking around to save people? Why cut the detail about Wally's chair being lined with lead?

Just... bizarre. These are not superfluous things.

 

[Flint Marko]

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.

And yet, in this specific instance, the only real comparison the two scenes have is that they both take place in the snow. There's not a lot of similarities on a thematic level that would tie these two moments together in a meaningful way.

And therein lies one of Snyder's many faults; his visuals can be bursting at the seams with meaning and intent, but if the screenplay is weak (which is true of both films so far), it makes the whole thing either ring hollow (see Superman's death) or seem entirely accidental.

 

[misslane38]

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.

The fact that, in the moment, Clark is developed within does not render him a passive character. Clark is an active character who engages in a passive activity in order to make his next active move. Characters are defined as active or passive based on the full scope of their narrative. The question is whether or not Superman is predominantly a passive character in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and does this passivity make him a character without dimension or personality.

 

[Micromind]

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.

He was talking about his Kryptonian parents and assuming that they must have taught him some thing good as Superman had been active in Metropolis for two years and was seen doing "good deeds". Batman was just making an observation. Batman had No clue that Kents were his Earth parents (foster parents).

Superman would not say "Save my Mother" because, Bats doesn't know about Superman's family at that point, in such circumstances, I think Superman did the right thing, getting to to point, say the name of the person he wants to saved, his relationship with that person can be conveyed later.

 

[misslane38]

And yet, in this specific instance, the only real comparison the two scenes have is that they both take place in the snow. There's not a lot compare on a thematic level that would tie these two moments together in a meaningful way.

And therein lies one of Snyder's many faults; his visuals can be bursting at the seams with meaning and intent, but if the screenplay is weak (which is true of both films so far), it makes the whole thing either ring hollow (see Superman's death) or seem entirely accidental.

Superman mythology has as one of its most iconic narrative beats Superman communing with a dead father alone in a snowy environment. In the Snyderverse, he repeated this by having Clark first meet Jor-El in the snowy burial site of an abandoned Kryptonian ship. That Clark ultimately finds wisdom and solace from a visit up a snowy mountain where he interacts with his own memory of his human father is a beautiful callback. It is not just a visual parallel either. The visual adds a layer of meaning to a scene that is already meaningful, as opposed to "hollow," because the dialogue within it deals with the idea of nightmares throughout the film, it deals with the idea of unintended negative consequences from positive action, and it deals with the important relationships in Clark's life.

 

[Da-Scribe]

And yet, in this specific instance, the only real comparison the two scenes have is that they both take place in the snow. There's not a lot of similarities on a thematic level that would tie these two moments together in a meaningful way.

And therein lies one of Snyder's many faults; his visuals can be bursting at the seams with meaning and intent, but if the screenplay is weak (which is true of both films so far), it makes the whole thing either ring hollow (see Superman's death) or seem entirely accidental.

I mean, both scenes involve the words of his father inspiring him to be a hero. The context is just different. I think that would qualify as a pretty major thematic similarity.

 

[gdw]

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.

I mean this is projecting justification/"rational" for character's actions, beyond what is in the film, and I was saying that should not be necessary.

The notion of there being nothing "in the film that contradicts that reading," is not a validation of this "headcanon."

I actually do this SAME thing with regards to the bat murder in the film, and the fact that he doesn't actively kill anyone until AFTER the Knightmare vision. I like to infer that, as that is the point that his resolve regarding his course of action re: the Superman, is hardened, (this is about saving the WORLD,) that this is the point at which a bit of collateral damage becomes acceptable to him.
He really only kills in the course of pursuing this ends in the film.
Similarly one can infer that Darkseid's "presence" in the vison, and his influence, begin to further corrupt Bruce, pushing him just over that edge he's standing on.

That is pure rationalizing on my part. I think it would make the film better, and make the bat murder more palatable, but that does not change what it is.

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.

I don't thinks its MUCH of a stretch to think he COULD have. Just as it's not much of a stretch to infer what I like to about Bruce, and his killing.

My point was that it is just that, being INFERRED, not something that is implied by the film, and that we shouldn't have to "finesse" the film in our heads like this after the fact.

 

[Flint Marko]

Superman mythology has as one of its most iconic narrative beats Superman communing with a dead father alone in a snowy environment. In the Snyderverse, he repeated this by having Clark first meet Jor-El in the snowy burial site of an abandoned Kryptonian ship. That Clark ultimately finds wisdom and solace from a visit up a snowy mountain where he interacts with his own memory of his human father is a beautiful callback. It is not just a visual parallel either. The visual adds a layer of meaning to a scene that is already meaningful, as opposed to "hollow," because the dialogue within it deals with the idea of nightmares throughout the film, it deals with the idea of unintended negative consequences from positive action, and it deals with the important relationships in Clark's life.

I mean, both scenes involve the words of his father inspiring him to be a hero. The context is just different. I think that would qualify as a pretty major thematic similarity.

I stand corrected, I had forgotten that the scene where he emerged from the ship in MoS was preceded by a speech from Jor-el. My mistake.

 

[Paradox1]

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.

You know what , I hadn't thought about that parallel but I see your point. i gotta say watching that scene in the future I'll see it with new appreciation.

 

[gdw]

And yet, in this specific instance, the only real comparison the two scenes have is that they both take place in the snow. There's not a lot of similarities on a thematic level that would tie these two moments together in a meaningful way.

And therein lies one of Snyder's many faults; his visuals can be bursting at the seams with meaning and intent, but if the screenplay is weak (which is true of both films so far), it makes the whole thing either ring hollow (see Superman's death) or seem entirely accidental.

It's a lot more than just the setting. Both scenes are Clark turning to his dead father(s) for guidance. The scenes parallel, and contrast, in very telling ways, as outlined by elgaz.

Obviously I disagree with you as far as the script being weak. MOS, I'd say, was the weakER of the 2, but I do not find either script, nor story, to be weak.

 

[idiot09]

Don't forget the parallel of the two funerals in the movie....both inspiring Bruce in different ways...both having two shots fired (bullets/canon) with one of the shells seen hitting the ground.

 

[kguillou]

I love how these movies (MoS and BvS) are creating debate and discussion. I think that in its own right is an achievement. In this day and age with all these blockbusters coming out one after the other, I feel like alot of time you go see them, get your sugar rush and then the movie leaves your mind a week later. Or like in the case of Fant4stic, people watched it, uninamously agreed it was crap and moved on. MoS and BvS stirred the pot and remain hot topics of discussion. Love or hate em, Snyder's found a way to make these films stick in your mind.

 

[gdw]

Superman mythology has as one of its most iconic narrative beats Superman communing with a dead father alone in a snowy environment. In the Snyderverse, he repeated this by having Clark first meet Jor-El in the snowy burial site of an abandoned Kryptonian ship. That Clark ultimately finds wisdom and solace from a visit up a snowy mountain where he interacts with his own memory of his human father is a beautiful callback. It is not just a visual parallel either. The visual adds a layer of meaning to a scene that is already meaningful, as opposed to "hollow," because the dialogue within it deals with the idea of nightmares throughout the film, it deals with the idea of unintended negative consequences from positive action, and it deals with the important relationships in Clark's life.

Yes. The two scenes are clearly meant as 2 sides of the same coin.
Both are the moment where Clark turns to his father(s) in moments of doubt, and both serve as turning points for Clark to embrace who he is, and what he does, in the face of adversity, both internal, and external.

In MOS, Jor-el presents him with the good he can do: The ideal, and the hope he can represent. In BvS, Jonathon is presenting him with the other side of the coin, the reality of unintended consequences.
Jor El spoke of how "They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall," whereas Jonathon is talking about how CLARK will stumble.

It's very much a mirror of the two films themselves. MOS is about Clark accepting what he can do, and BvS is about acknowledging the consequences of what he can do.

 

[gdw]

I stand corrected, I had forgotten that the scene where he emerged from the ship in MoS was preceded by a speech from Jor-el. My mistake.

This was, I believe, the main thrust of the comparison of these scenes.

You know what , I hadn't thought about that parallel but I see your point. i gotta say watching that scene in the future I'll see it with new appreciation.

Glad to hear! The death parallels with JorEl was actually something I had not noticed either. Someone else on these boards mentioned it.
In fact, pretty much ALL of these mirroring and contrasting, were only really brought to my attention more recently.

REALLY expanded my appreciation of Snyder, and both films.

I think the first one I recall reading was actually just within MOS. Someone claiming that Superman snapping Zod's neck mirrored KalEl's birth scene.
Watched a video showing the scenes side by side, and, honestly, at the time, I really thought it was reaching, lol.
There were definitely some similarities in rhythm, but I remember thinking it was essentially just coincidental, and far from intentional.

Looking back now, I'm not so sure, lol.

 

[Whatupman]

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?

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

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

And no, for me, it doesn't make Superman a richer and more interesting character to know that in his darkest moments, he is able to, and most comfortable recalling, the wisdom of his dead human father. We had already seen that Clark had a connection to Jonathan, so that scene didn't turn Clark into a richer and more interesting character. And scenes like the one on top of the mountain does not make me reconsider thinking that Clark only feels like a chess piece by the writer. Actually, that scene only reinforces it, because the character development is so rushed and so unnatural, that it feels like the writer had to get the character to that place in a short amount of time. And no, I don't think that a character only can have an entertaining and engaging personality if that character is active at all times.

 

[Micromind]

I love how these movies (MoS and BvS) are creating debate and discussion. I think that in its own right is an achievement. In this day and age with all these blockbusters coming out one after the other, I feel like alot of time you go see them, get your sugar rush and then the movie leaves your mind a week later. Or like in the case of Fant4stic, people watched it, uninamously agreed it was crap and moved on. MoS and BvS stirred the pot and remain hot topics of discussion. Love or hate em, Snyder's found a way to make these films stick in your mind.

Agreed, I prefer a movie which makes you think than a movie which I enjoy while watching but can't remember it after a week.

I liked all the visual parallels and the themes that ere explored in the movie.

I liked many Quotes from the movie. For instance -

Lex: "See, what we call God depends upon our tribe, Clark Joe, 'cause God is tribal; God takes sides! No man in the sky intervened when I was a boy to deliver me from daddy's fist and abominations. I figured out way back if God is all-powerful, He cannot be all good. And if He is all good, then He cannot be all-powerful. And neither can you."

But then after that Superman saved Lex from Doomsday without taking sides, thus disproving Lex's theory that God is tribal.

Bruce Wayne: "There was a time above ... a time before ... there were perfect things ... diamond absolutes. But things fall ..."

He is referring to a time when he had high morals (a code for Batman), which no longer exists.

 

[gdw]

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

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

And no, for me, it doesn't make Superman a richer and more interesting character to know that in his darkest moments, he is able to, and most comfortable recalling, the wisdom of his dead human father. We had already seen that Clark had a connection to Jonathan, so that scene didn't turn Clark into a richer and more interesting character. And scenes like the one on top of the mountain does not make me reconsider thinking that Clark only feels like a chess piece by the writer. Actually, that scene only reinforces it, because the character development is so rushed and so unnatural, that it feels like the writer had to get the character to that place in a short amount of time. And no, I don't think that a character only can have an entertaining and engaging personality if that character is active at all times.

I really have no clue what you guys are even debating anymore. Actually, I don't think I ever did.

 

[gdw]

Agreed, I prefer a movie which makes you think than a movie which I enjoy while watching but can't remember it after a week.

I liked all the visual parallels and the themes that ere explored in the movie.

I liked many Quotes from the movie. For instance -

Lex: "See, what we call God depends upon our tribe, Clark Joe, 'cause God is tribal; God takes sides! No man in the sky intervened when I was a boy to deliver me from daddy's fist and abominations. I figured out way back if God is all-powerful, He cannot be all good. And if He is all good, then He cannot be all-powerful. And neither can you."

But then after that Superman saved Lex from Doomsday without taking sides, thus disproving Lex's theory that God is tribal.

Bruce Wayne: "There was a time above ... a time before ... there were perfect things ... diamond absolutes. But things fall ..."

He is referring to a time when he had high morals (a code for Batman), which no longer exists.

Don't forget "what falls is fallen . . ." he's talking about how he's crossed that line, and he can't go back. Then " . . . on Earth" which is an obvious allusion to Superman, and being not of this Earth, and, again, the "obvious" interpretation is the allusion to his flight, but it's more foreshadowing. It's alluding to the redemption that Superman ultimately provides Bruce.

 

[Micromind]

Don't forget "what falls is fallen . . ." he's talking about how he's crossed that line, and he can't go back. Then " . . . on Earth" which is an obvious allusion to Superman, and being not of this Earth, and, again, the "obvious" interpretation is the allusion to his flight, but it's more foreshadowing. It's alluding to the redemption that Superman ultimately provides Bruce.

Terrio is a fantastic writer.

 

[gdw]

Terrio is a fantastic writer.

SO much potential for Justice League.

 

[TeeKay]

He was talking about his Kryptonian parents and assuming that they must have taught him some thing good as Superman had been active in Metropolis for two years and was seen doing "good deeds". Batman was just making an observation. Batman had No clue that Kents were his Earth parents (foster parents).

Superman would not say "Save my Mother" because, Bats doesn't know about Superman's family at that point, in such circumstances, I think Superman did the right thing, getting to to point, say the name of the person he wants to saved, his relationship with that person can be conveyed later.

That's all well and good but I still didn't like it. It's a matter of poor execution and contrived writing more than anything else. I literally was laughing during that entire scene and it's suppose to be an emotional and heart wrenching scene. It just didn't work for me.

I love how these movies (MoS and BvS) are creating debate and discussion. I think that in its own right is an achievement. In this day and age with all these blockbusters coming out one after the other, I feel like alot of time you go see them, get your sugar rush and then the movie leaves your mind a week later. Or like in the case of Fant4stic, people watched it, uninamously agreed it was crap and moved on. MoS and BvS stirred the pot and remain hot topics of discussion. Love or hate em, Snyder's found a way to make these films stick in your mind.

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

 

[Whatupman]

If what you and "so many people" got out of the scene was something that was not there at all, then how is it the fault of the film? The writing, directing, and acting all show that Bruce is angered by the name "Martha" and only puts down his spear when he learns that "Martha" is the name of Superman's mother who needs help. It is so simple, yet is so misinterpreted that it seems to be some sort of willful misrepresentation.

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

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

The fact that, in the moment, Clark is developed within does not render him a passive character. Clark is an active character who engages in a passive activity in order to make his next active move. Characters are defined as active or passive based on the full scope of their narrative. The question is whether or not Superman is predominantly a passive character in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and does this passivity make him a character without dimension or personality.

I don't know why you quoted me here, because, as I've said several times, I don't consider Clark to be overall a passive character.

 

[gdw]

BvS is the Penn & Teller Cups and Balls of comic book films.