BvS The Flash Point Explained

Precisely why all the gimmicky dream sequences, and multiverse stuff is absolute crap. When that whole scene went down, everyone in the theater was all WTF. Such poor, poor convoluted yet meaningless script writing. Waste of a long, pointless AF scene.

 

The Knightmare sequence impact is also kind of nullified by the fact that Bruce Wayne has two other dream sequences in the movie with WTF imagery ([BLACKOUT]bats lifting him out of a cave after we his parents die for the billionth time, him going to his dead mothers tomb and being attacked by manbat[/BLACKOUT]) that the knightmare scene feels like the third bad dream Bruce Wayne has in the movie instead of the big moment it should've been.

There are like three bad dreams Bruce Wayne has in this movie that don't amount to anything.

 

Well thought out and explained, man, and nice job with the diagram. My thoughts when I first saw that scene (and I think this is what you're saying too)


There is an ORIGINAL TIMELINE in which Bruce never sees The Flash that leads all the way up to the Knightmare sequence and Bruce's death.

At some point in the ORIGINAL TIMELINE, The Flash goes back in time and sees Bruce (the scene between the two in BvS). This causes the ORIGINAL TIMELINE to be possibly erased, and the events after this scene are part of an ALTERNATE TIMELINE (at this exact moment, Bruce has residual memories of the Original Timeline).


Now, where is the Alternate Timeline heading? We don't know. Did Batman and Superman make up in the Original Timeline? Did Superman die in the Doomsday fight? Has Flash actually changed anything? I don't think his brief message to Bruce Wayne was enough to change the future from the Darkseid hell that we witnessed, he's gonna have to do more than that, but I think that moment between Bruce and Flash is going to an important piece of the puzzle.


Sorry if I just completely stated the obvious, just trying to condense and process what you said.

 

What is the other dream besides the opening where his parents are killed?



Just a possibility, but what if those are more than dreams, but are also connected to the time travel? For example, probably not the case, but if in the future, Flash (or Bruce and Flash) travelled back to the time his parents were killed, for whatever reason, and had to make the choice to allow it to happen, so that Bruce becomes Batman, and is able to kill Darkseid or whatever he has to do.



Idk, I like time travel, I could get down with them getting all kinds of convoluted with that shizz, but probably a good idea to keep it simple.



COMPLETELY UNRELATED LOST SEMI SPOILER:

For example, a big missed opportunity on Lost was to have a big moment in the first or second season that was directly tied to the time travel in Season 4. A mystery like "Who was that in the woods who saved Kate's life in Season 2?" Then it turns out "Oh snap, it was Sawyer from the future!" Or Sawyer saves Kate in S01E23, but then acts like he has no memory of it, and then you find out he had no memory of it because he hadn't done it yet. But that's a whole different thing, sorry.

 

Also, I bought this up in the Open Discussion, too, but I was thinking with the time travel, they have the possibility to retcon some of the things that people didn't like in BvS, like Clark Kent's public death for example. Similar to the X-Men franchise. I'm fine with it the way it is, but so many people aren't, that it could be a way to change people's minds on the DCEU moving forward.

 

WTF imagery galore.

The second young Bruce was levitated by Bat Tornado ... I immediately winced, looked at my gf with a face palm like expression, and right then knew I was headed on a bumpy ride with my favorite character.

People get upset that they did the Waynes death again, but the bigger idiotic decision was why even do the scene of him encountering the bats for the first time?

When it was just done so vividly, in such an iconic way, not ten years ago?

 

There's the bit where he's in the family mausoleum and a creature bat comes at him from Martha Kent's grave.

The other is the conversation with Clark and his dad, but that is just a memory he's having not really a dream.

 

Same thing happened with me and my roommate.

While the OP's post was interesting, the "Knightmare" sequence felt so out of place and odd in a movie that was so out of place and odd, that I didn't really care about anything I saw.

 

Thanks for the explanation, I'm not at all familiar with Flash point so I was pretty confused by that part in the movie. This really cleared it up for me.

 

Congratulations, you have now put more thought into this than Snyder and Terrio did for the whole movie

 

isn't it very educating? and it makes our thinking better!!!

 

My thoughts exactly. You may be totally crazy, but you are totally crazy in an interesting, fun, kind of way. Also, you still make more sense than this movie.

 

Interesting post, I dig it. Main thing I wonder, and I'm not too sure on the timing on this, but wasn't Bruce already trying to get the Kryptonite before this?

 

He was. But let's not let that get in the way of a nice theory.

 

That's actually a really good question, because... how did Bruce even know about it in the first place? How did he even know about kryptonite?

 

The opening post nicely details my own (admittedly vaguer) thoughts regarding the Knightmare and its significance in the story. It plays like a WTF dream sequence but, because of the shifting of papers blown by the closing if the time portal, we know the Flash's visit was real. It follows that what Flash says is true and valid: If Lois dies AND if Batman does not find kryptonite and stop him, Superman will go off the rails and become some kind of god-king serving under Darkseid. Therefore the 1% speech (so deeply criticized as stupid and paranoid and emotional and non-Batman-like by detractors of this film) makes perfect sense because Batman has personally witnessed what will happen if Superman is not stopped (and if Lois dies).

This also clarifies the Martha moment, because Batman believed (from the memory/vision) that Superman was an uncaring psychopath. Given Kal's behavior in that alternate future, who could blame him? Yet when Superman confides that he cares for a mere human being and does not want her to die, this places the vision further into perspective. Killing the people that Superman loves might cause a psychotic break. Therefore Martha needs to be saved so that Supes will continue being a caring and compassionate being.

 

Awesome job on the explanations!!! The more we delve in to BvS, the more I cherish it more and more!

 

What you seem to mean by "gimmicky" is that you personally don't understand why it's been included in the movie. Yet the opening post of this thread explains it nicely (if a bit verbosely!).

What you seem to mean by "absolute crap" is that you didn't like the movie. That's your prerogative, but it's worth noting that the majority of members here have rated the film 8-10 on a scale of 10 (see the no-discussion rating thread).

Of course, you cannot possibly know what "everyone in the theater" was thinking during this scene. If you did, you'd be a superhero. Or a supervillain. Your choice, of course!

By "convoluted", "meaningless" and "poor" you seem to mean you didn't follow the plot or find it moving or powerful. I, on the other hand, did, and there are many who agree with me. Introducing iconic super-powered characters into a real-world scenario, and then exploring how that would affect their behavior and their worldview, is fascinating and powerful, in my view.

I will grant that some of the plot is difficult to follow on first viewing. Certain clarifying lines of dialogue may be missed in the sturm und drang, and the purpose of the Knightmare scene, among others, may be difficult to fathom at first blush. But repeat viewings clarify the plot; I assure you it's all there on-screen. It's not convoluted, but it is complex and multi-layered. And thoughtful posts like LamboMan's help us disentangle those layers.

 

I'll tell you what... There are certain parts in the movie that don't make sense and simply want the audience to suspend their disbelief (as do many other movies) and trying to find reason in those events is a thankless exercise.

Then there are certain things that are, either by design or just bad storytelling, made to be scarce on first viewing and probably dictated a second viewing to make sense.

The problem is that once the audience begins to try and unravel what is happening and hits one of the more nonsensical plot points they probably conclude that the entire thing is the same and don't invest in it any more.

That is my hypothesis backed by a rather sharp second weekend BO drop.

Now, I can give the film props for trying to be deeper than a popcorn flick and I personally like that-I liked BvS in general though it was a bit underwhelming- but I don't think Snyder is a good enough storyteller to pull that off.

Make no mistake, I am a 'Snyder Guy'. I watched Sucker Punch and Ga'Hoole for the sole reason that Snyder had directed them and then watched them a few more times but I don't live under a rock. I do recognize his flaws and he just did a really poor job at hiding them in BvS.