BvS The BvS Ultimate Cut Thread - Part 3

[idiot09]

I think what you're missing, or neglecting in your consideration of this moment, is that those things were not Bruce's motivation, but rather his rationalization.

Bruce is motivated by his feeling of helplessness, and ineptitude, and ultimate futility. Hence why he thinks this one "big" thing, killing Superman, will be the one thing he does that makes a difference, because he's CONVINCING himself that he's right with all the "1%" crap.

So, the Martha moment wakes him up to the fact that, in his fear, he has become the very monster that created him. It is in seeing that truth about himself, and what was REALLY motivating him, that allows him to realize that he has been wrong about everything else he was using to "justify" his choices and actions.

You're right, this does not negate the Knightmare vision, or whomever he saw telling him he was "right about him." It does, however, allow him to re-contextualize them. He still doesn't know what exactly they were about, nor about WHOM he was right.
Or even what, exactly, he was right about. While Flash could have been referring to Darkseid, and the Lois stuff was referring to her being the key to what allows Darkseid to corrupt Superman perhaps. Even in that, it could be said Bruce was still right about Superman, as he's what Darkseid USES as a threat.
Long story short, Bruce was making a lot of assumptions about what he saw, and those assumptions were informed by his fear. He was also presented very disjointed imagery, right along side the time-traveling warning, and Bruce, and the audience, are meant to make several incorrect assumptions about them, and their connections to each other, and the current events of the film.

So, Bruce is piecing these bits together, and letting his fear dictate the narrative, leading to the clearly flawed "1%" rationalizing.
The Martha moment opens his eyes to the reality of his fear based motivation, and that, in turn, allows the "logic" of his rationalizing to crumble away.

Hit the nail firmly on the head.Very well said.

 

[Sleiek]

I may not see everything eye to eye with gdw, but this guy does a fantastic job articulating himself.

 

[Flint Marko]

I think what you're missing, or neglecting in your consideration of this moment, is that those things were not Bruce's motivation, but rather his rationalization.

Bruce is motivated by his feeling of helplessness, and ineptitude, and ultimate futility. Hence why he thinks this one "big" thing, killing Superman, will be the one thing he does that makes a difference, because he's CONVINCING himself that he's right with all the "1%" crap.

So, the Martha moment wakes him up to the fact that, in his fear, he has become the very monster that created him. It is in seeing that truth about himself, and what was REALLY motivating him, that allows him to realize that he has been wrong about everything else he was using to "justify" his choices and actions.

You're right, this does not negate the Knightmare vision, or whomever he saw telling him he was "right about him." It does, however, allow him to re-contextualize them. He still doesn't know what exactly they were about, nor about WHOM he was right.
Or even what, exactly, he was right about. While Flash could have been referring to Darkseid, and the Lois stuff was referring to her being the key to what allows Darkseid to corrupt Superman perhaps. Even in that, it could be said Bruce was still right about Superman, as he's what Darkseid USES as a threat.
Long story short, Bruce was making a lot of assumptions about what he saw, and those assumptions were informed by his fear. He was also presented very disjointed imagery, right along side the time-traveling warning, and Bruce, and the audience, are meant to make several incorrect assumptions about them, and their connections to each other, and the current events of the film.

So, Bruce is piecing these bits together, and letting his fear dictate the narrative, leading to the clearly flawed "1%" rationalizing.
The Martha moment opens his eyes to the reality of his fear based motivation, and that, in turn, allows the "logic" of his rationalizing to crumble away.

Let's get right to the heart of the argument here.

Giving your character a stupid and nonsensical motivation (and make no mistake, attempting to kill someone who saved the planet and is regularly flying around the world doing heroic deeds is undeniable, outright stupidity) that they can then go "whoops! I was wrong the whole time!" is the direct opposite of good story-telling.

You can talk all day about how he was motivated by fear and feelings of helplessness, but it's not - it was motivated by the studio's desire to pit these two character's against one another because they know a movie titled "Batman v Superman" will have a huge opening weekend. They attempted to work backwards and contrive a story in which these two character's fought, but they failed at it spectacularly.

Nothing you can say will go in and edit scenes into the theatrical cut so that the starting point for Bruce's journey will make any sense whatsoever. This makes Bruce's "conversion" that much more jarring - based on what was presented in the TC, you've put more thought into this than the film maker's themselves.

 

[gdw]

Dude, the film, even in the theatrical cut, was literally EXPLICIT about fear, and powerlessness/helplessness, and the futility of his 20 year crusade, being what was actually motivating him, making "good men, cruel."

 

[gdw]

I may not see everything eye to eye with gdw, but this guy does a fantastic job articulating himself.

Thanks. I've never considered my self particularly skilled in articulating myself, or my points. I usually think I'm just being redundant, while failing to make things any more clear.

 

[Flint Marko]

Dude, the film, even in the theatrical cut, was literally EXPLICIT about fear, and powerlessness/helplessness, and the futility of his 20 year crusade, being what was actually motivating him, making "good men, cruel."

And, again, this only works if we can accept that this version of Batman is a moron.

"This guy saved the planet and regularly flies around the world saving people. It's my duty to kill him".

Please, explain to me how that isn't a mind-numbingly stupid motivation. Not jaded, not cynical, not fueled by helplessness or fear, outright stupid.

It doesn't work. It's a broken concept from the start, and Bruce doing a complete 180 so quickly further highlights how much this doesn't work.

 

[souperman]

Let's get right to the heart of the argument here.

Giving your character a stupid and nonsensical motivation (and make no mistake, attempting to kill someone who saved the planet and is regularly flying around the world doing heroic deeds is undeniable, outright stupidity) that they can then go "whoops! I was wrong the whole time!" is the direct opposite of good story-telling.

You can talk all day about how he was motivated by fear and feelings of helplessness, but it's not - it was motivated by the studio's desire to pit these two character's against one another because they know a movie titled "Batman v Superman" will have a huge opening weekend. They attempted to work backwards and contrive a story in which these two character's fought, but they failed at it spectacularly.

Nothing you can say will go in and edit scenes into the theatrical cut so that the starting point for Bruce's journey will make any sense whatsoever. This makes Bruce's "conversion" that much more jarring - based on what was presented in the TC, you've put more thought into this than the film maker's themselves.

I think the heart of the discussion is that some people believe that people can and do change their minds in the heat of the moment and some people do not.

Example.

A soldier on a battlefield. Death all around. He is fighting, shooting, killing the enemy one after the other. He aims at a brutal enemy who just killed his best friend and is about to fire when the enemy puts his hands up to surrender.

Some soldiers may still kill this enemy.

Some would hold their fire, wanting desperately to kill the man who killed his friend...he has already killed hordes of others he thinks to himself...why can't I pull the trigger on this one...?

 

[idiot09]

At the end of Captain America: Civil War Iron Man gets mad at the Winter Soldier when he finds out that he killed his parents. Isn't Tony Stark smart enough to understand that Bucky was mindcontrolled and had no control over what he did?Why did he try to kill Bucky and even CA then?Wasnt that stupid?

No it wasnt.It was very emotional.And I loved it.Because sometimes emotions rule over logic leading people to do stupid stuff.

 

[Erzengel]

^
That was more personal.

It's not like Superman caused the death of Batman's mother.

I understand what you guys are trying to say and it obviously worked for you. It didn't for me. It could have worked better with a different execution.

 

[The Joker]

And, again, this only works if we can accept that this version of Batman is a moron.

That's the only way his entire story works in this movie.

 

[Sleiek]

And, again, this only works if we can accept that this version of Batman is a moron.

"This guy destroyed my building and satellite, killed my employees. It's my duty to kill him".

Please, explain to me how that isn't a mind-numbingly stupid motivation. Not jaded, not cynical, not fueled by helplessness or fear, outright stupid.

It doesn't work. It's a broken concept from the start, and Bruce doing a complete 180 so quickly further highlights how much this doesn't work.

Fixed.

 

[gdw]

And, again, this only works if we can accept that this version of Batman is a moron.

"This guy saved the planet and regularly flies around the world saving people. It's my duty to kill him".

Please, explain to me how that isn't a mind-numbingly stupid motivation. Not jaded, not cynical, not fueled by helplessness or fear, outright stupid.

It doesn't work. It's a broken concept from the start, and Bruce doing a complete 180 so quickly further highlights how much this doesn't work.

Because it's EMOTIONALLY based. That's why it circumvents Bruce's usual flawless reasoning. It's undeniably based on fear, and emotion.
It's also about, not what good Superman has done, but the damage he caused in the process, and the POTENTIAL he has to do so much MORE damage.

 

[Flint Marko]

At the end of Captain America: Civil War Iron Man gets mad at the Winter Soldier when he finds out that he killed his parents. Isn't Tony Stark smart enough to understand that Bucky was mindcontrolled and had no control over what he did?Why did he try to kill Bucky and even CA then?Wasnt that stupid?

No it wasnt.It was very emotional.And I loved it.Because sometimes emotions rule over logic leading people to do stupid stuff.

If Iron Man then spent 18 months mulling over ways to kill the Winter Soldier, but then decided against it because Bucky's mom was also named Maria.... yeah, that'd be stupid.

Because it's EMOTIONALLY based. That's why it circumvents Bruce's usual flawless reasoning. It's undeniably based on fear, and emotion.
It's also about, not what good Superman has done, but the damage he caused in the process, and the potential he has to do so much MORE damage.

If those emotions fuel you for the better part of two years, and you do little to no research into the target of your misguided crusade, you aren't a very intelligent person, let alone the world's greatest detective.
And, again, Superman having a mother named Martha does nothing to change the potential he has to do so much more damage in the future.

Fixed.

Anyone with any modicum of intelligence could figure out the other Kryptonian's were to blame. They invaded the planet, and Superman, who had been living here peacefully for 33 years, stepped forward and stopped them from destroying the earth.
But again, this relies on Batman not being a moron.

 

[idiot09]

^
That was more personal.

It's not like Superman caused the death of Batman's mother.

I understand what you guys are trying to say and it obviously worked for you. It didn't for me. It could have worked better with a different execution.

Superman's arrival made Bruce feel powerless like when he did when his parents were murdered,there was a reason those scenes were consequtive in order.It was very personal for Bruce,he considered it his legacy.

 

[souperman]

That's the only way his entire story works in this movie.

I will repeat.

It is because of doubt, that he stops.

What if I am wrong in my assessment of Superman?. What if I am wrong about my interpretations of my dreams and visions...?

This does not change Batman into a Mother Theresa. He is still hard on his villains, but he has taken one step back.

 

[Sleiek]

Anyone with any modicum of intelligence could figure out the other Kryptonian's were to blame. They invaded the planet, and Superman, who had been living here peacefully for 33 years, stepped forward and stopped them from destroying the earth.
But again, this relies on Batman not being a moron.

Not really. In the real world, if someone like that existed, there will be distrust atleast with a portion of the population.

Take Man of Steel for example, many people actually complained Superman didn't save enough people. Ofcourse that comes from being a fan, but you can see how it bothers people.

We, as audience members, know what's up with Superman. We see his every moment but not the characters in the film. They don't know Clark Kent like we do. They don't know what Zod and Kal El talk about. They don't know Clark Kent's motivations. Hence the question, explored in the little montage where some of those speculate maybe he is here to do the right thing while others don't.

Being paranoid doesn't mean you are a moron.

 

[Flint Marko]

Not really. In the real world, if someone like that existed, there will be distrust atleast with a portion of the population.

Take Man of Steel for example, many people actually complained Superman didn't save enough people. Ofcourse that comes from being a fan, but you can see how it bothers people.

We, as audience members, know what's up with Superman. We see his every moment but not the characters in the film. They don't know Clark Kent like we do. They don't know what Zod and Kal El talk about. They don't know Clark Kent's motivations. Hence the question, explored in the little montage where some of those speculate maybe he is here to do the right thing while others don't.

Being paranoid doesn't mean you are a moron.

And being paranoid doesn't mean you're out to kill anyone you don't trust. See what I mean?

There's a huge difference between healthy skepticism and inexplicable lunacy - this Batman fits the latter description. I agree that most people wouldn't trust Superman right off the bat, that seems extremely realistic, but immediately deciding that this person must be put down, particularly after they save the planet and hundreds, if not thousands, around the world on a regular basis? Nope.

And again, had Batman actually done Batman things and researched Superman, one can reasonably assume he would've quickly figured out how wrong-headed and dumb his plan was.

 

[souperman]

And being paranoid doesn't mean you're out to kill anyone you don't trust. See what I mean?

There's a huge difference between healthy skepticism and inexplicable lunacy - this Batman fits the latter description. I agree that most people wouldn't trust Superman right off the bat, that seems extremely realistic, but immediately deciding that this person must be put down, particularly after they save the planet and hundreds, if not thousands, around the world on a regular basis? Nope.

And again, had Batman actually done Batman things and researched Superman, one can reasonably assume he would've quickly figured out how wrong-headed and dumb his plan was.

 

[Sleiek]

And being paranoid doesn't mean you're out to kill anyone you don't trust. See what I mean?

There's a huge difference between healthy skepticism and inexplicable lunacy - this Batman fits the latter description. I agree that most people wouldn't trust Superman right off the bat, that seems extremely realistic, but immediately deciding that this person must be put down, particularly after they save the planet and hundreds, if not thousands, around the world on a regular basis? Nope.

And again, had Batman actually done Batman things and researched Superman, one can reasonably assume he would've quickly figured out how wrong-headed and dumb his plan was.

And whoever said Batman's paranoid mentality is healthy skepticism? No, it comes from another place.

I guess some find sense in it and others find it "moronic".

No one here is saying Batman is "right". We all know he was on the wrong side.

 

[Binker]

I find it stupid that people who have answered the question outside of SHH! happen to be people who are IN or WORKED on the movie.

Batman stops when he hears the name "Martha" from Superman's mouth, stating that "they're going to kill Martha" and "save Martha!" This confuses him and he angrily demands why he said that name, until Lois reveals its his mother's name. Suddenly, Batman realizes what she and Martha Kent know about Superman that the world doesn't: he is a human being named Clark Kent, not really an alien with the name of Kal-El, nor a God or even a monster. Getting the truth that "Luthor wanted your life for hers. She's losing time." Batman heads out to save Superman's mom, because he hopes this can redeem himself personally for saving the mother he couldn't save, and was lost to him.

There's the answer guys. Now please can we just accept it and move on.

 

[DCW]

Agreed. But there are some people who haunt this section on a daily basis that will never accept it or move on.

 

[The Joker]

You can't accept something that is stupid, and you think was horribly executed. Explaining it over and over doesn't change it's comical execution. It will forever haunt this movie as one of the most stupid things to ever be put into a CBM.

So stupid they're putting it on t-shirts to mock it.

And being paranoid doesn't mean you're out to kill anyone you don't trust. See what I mean?

There's a huge difference between healthy skepticism and inexplicable lunacy - this Batman fits the latter description. I agree that most people wouldn't trust Superman right off the bat, that seems extremely realistic, but immediately deciding that this person must be put down, particularly after they save the planet and hundreds, if not thousands, around the world on a regular basis? Nope.

And again, had Batman actually done Batman things and researched Superman, one can reasonably assume he would've quickly figured out how wrong-headed and dumb his plan was.

 

[souperman]

You can't accept something that is stupid, and you think was horribly executed. Explaining it over and over doesn't change it's comical execution. It will forever haunt this movie as one of the most stupid things to ever be put into a CBM.

So stupid they're putting it on t-shirts to mock it.

Didn't you post this very same image and argument last week? A little lazy Joker...

means nothing...

 

[Spoonman]

If those emotions fuel you for the better part of two years, and you do little to no research into the target of your misguided crusade, you aren't a very intelligent person, let alone the world's greatest detective.
And, again, Superman having a mother named Martha does nothing to change the potential he has to do so much more damage in the future.

What does that have to do with Batman stopping anyway? Bats did not consider any "change" in the damage "potential" on Superman's part; That had nothing to do with his rationale to stop his tirade against Supes, he ceased because he realized his emotions of hate, paranoia and being so jaded had taken the best of him.

 

[The Joker]

Didn't you post this very same image and argument last week? A little lazy Joker...

If it ain't broke don't fix it. It works to illustrate the point.

means nothing...

Only if you like to ignore the fact that 'Noooooooooo' moment is regarded as one of the cheesiest bad acting moments of the Star Wars prequels.