BvS The Official Zack Snyder Directs Everything Thread - Part 4

[Kanye West]

I think you're confusing praise for Affleck's acting, with praise for the characterization. I know I'm in no small minority, because there is heaps of criticism, and not just from fanboys, about Batman in this movie.

If you need me to accept otherwise, then you're in for a long wait.



I know what type of character he's meant to be, that's why it doesn't work. This Batman is basing his whole murder plot on a tiny remote probability. Saying he's paranoid and distrustful doesn't make this character look any less stupid.

Not to mention the fact that Alfred is supporting an unstable murderous idiot also makes him look just as stupid.



That's hair splitting. It amounts to the same type of threat in the end. A bomb has only one purpose; to blow up. Whereas Superman has a long history of saving countless lives. Batman's perceiving a threat based on a tiny remote chance of something. That's the basis for his feud. So if you take this moronic logic and apply it to other threats to millions of lives, Batman should be killing anyone with the potential to make weapons and devices of mass destruction since they have as much chance as Superman of endangering countless lives.



Lex's "manipulation" just further compounds how stupid Batfleck was, considering he'd been investigating the guy and knew he was bad, but still fell for his obvious manipulations anyway.

Stop trying to use other comic book movies as a crutch to defend this movie's flaws. If you can't defend this movie on it's own "merits" then it's not a good movie in the first place, because a good movie can stand on it's own two feet and not need to be compared to other movies to back it up.



This could not be further from comic book Batman's principles and personality. Not on his worst day, not on his most hopeless moments, has Batman ever come even close to anything as illogical or idiotic as what Batfleck was doing in this movie. You keep repeating he's been betrayed, seen good men go bad, he's broken, he's lost people etc. So has comic book Batman. So how is this in keeping with the principle of his personality when it flies in the face of what Batman would really do?



Well since finding out Superman had a mother magically solved their whole "feud" of course. I mean that's all it took to forget about all those people that died in those buildings.



"UH, he would find superman's mom's name is martha! i'ma genius!"



We just just don't get it. "He was unstable, he lost Robin, Lex was manipulating him" #darkedgy Batman!

Ok.

Alfred, the guy who continues to talk him away from killing superman and tell's him he's wrong, is supporting him? This reveals to me that you either didn't actually see the film entirely, or actually can't comprehend dialogue. You're statement about alfred is so off the mark when it's SHOWN that he's against it. The WHOLE movie he tries to talk bruce out of it, but he's actually pushing him to do it more? ok buddy. You're actually making things up at this point.

And again with applying the speech to situations that aren't comparable. You actually can't comprehend why Superman going bad is not relatable to some random person being able to build WMD.
Let's see. Building WMD's in your backyard isn't as easy as superman destroying a whole city. Superman IS a WMD. There are steps that MANY people, like the government, take to insure people can't build nukes in their homes. The superman problem is something only batman is qualified to solve. Still don't see the difference?
He's the one person who can do anything about this. He's the one with the kryptonite. It's NOT comparable to taking down someone being able to build a WMD. Not even a little bit.

You keep repeating the same sentence. "His murder plot based on a tiny possibility". Not even taking into consideration that the tiny possibility could be the worse thing to ever happen to mankind. Batman doesn't like him, superman causes trouble wherever he goes, and he should still just wait and see? You haven't explained to me anything other than "it's small chance". Let's completely ignore all context. All the events that happen around superman in this movie and the last one, all the bushing of buttons. You're literally just looking at one line and ignoring everything that happens around it.

And don't give me that ******** of standing on it's own merits. That's not what it's about. It's about hypocrisy. Excepting moronic arguments in other films but criticizing it in another. Revealing your one sided view and bias. Which you already revealed with the alfred thing which actually made my jaw drop. Someone can actually be that ignorant. Character spends whole movie trying to convince someone to not do something, oh wait he's actually supporting him!


And the martha thing. oohhh boy. let me guess. That whole scene is just about the word martha right?

im ****ing dead

 

[sf2]

edit-
due to stern rules

 

[Batsfan1]

nuff said. but i only watched it once. can't remember correctly. i remember i don't like it.

Bruce didn't mess up the train controls. Ra's did. Anyone who was killed by the exploding house wasn't intentional. I think that's an important distinction for some people. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

 

[Micromind]

nuff said. but i only watched it once. can't remember correctly. i remember i don't like it.

Don't agree with this but liked the "Batman away" part.

 

[SM_experiment]

Ok.

Alfred, the guy who continues to talk him away from killing superman and tell's him he's wrong, is supporting him? This reveals to me that you either didn't actually see the film entirely, or actually can't comprehend dialogue. You're statement about alfred is so off the mark when it's SHOWN that he's against it. The WHOLE movie he tries to talk bruce out of it, but he's actually pushing him to do it more? ok buddy. You're actually making things up at this point.

And again with applying the speech to situations that aren't comparable. You actually can't comprehend why Superman going bad is not relatable to some random person being able to build WMD.
Let's see. Building WMD's in your backyard isn't as easy as superman destroying a whole city. Superman IS a WMD. There are steps that MANY people, like the government, take to insure people can't build nukes in their homes. The superman problem is something only batman is qualified to solve. Still don't see the difference?
He's the one person who can do anything about this. He's the one with the kryptonite. It's NOT comparable to taking down someone being able to build a WMD. Not even a little bit.

You keep repeating the same sentence. "His murder plot based on a tiny possibility". Not even taking into consideration that the tiny possibility could be the worse thing to ever happen to mankind. Batman doesn't like him, superman causes trouble wherever he goes, and he should still just wait and see? You haven't explained to me anything other than "it's small chance". Let's completely ignore all context. All the events that happen around superman in this movie and the last one, all the bushing of buttons. You're literally just looking at one line and ignoring everything that happens around it.

And don't give me that ******** of standing on it's own merits. That's not what it's about. It's about hypocrisy. Excepting moronic arguments in other films but criticizing it in another. Revealing your one sided view and bias. Which you already revealed with the alfred thing which actually made my jaw drop. Someone can actually be that ignorant. Character spends whole movie trying to convince someone to not do something, oh wait he's actually supporting him!


And the martha thing. oohhh boy. let me guess. That whole scene is just about the word martha right?

im ****ing dead

Why does not Batman kill the president of the United States? I mean even considering MoS climax that dude is responsible for a lot of death and destruction in the world on a scale you have never seen. I mean USA is the only country that has used nuclear(i know it is misspellt) weapons on cities. I trust these people much less than Superman any day.

 

[The Joker]

Ok.

Alfred, the guy who continues to talk him away from killing superman and tell's him he's wrong, is supporting him? This reveals to me that you either didn't actually see the film entirely, or actually can't comprehend dialogue. You're statement about alfred is so off the mark when it's SHOWN that he's against it. The WHOLE movie he tries to talk bruce out of it, but he's actually pushing him to do it more? ok buddy. You're actually making things up at this point.

Oh the denial...

Alfred continues to make weapons for Bruce, do all the tasks and chores to aid him in his murder quest. Voicing reservations to Bruce about his course of action is not denying him his support. Alfred can make all the speeches he likes, he's still standing by Bruce helping him in his ludicrous homicidal mission.

Imagine this went to trial. "Well your honor I told him I didn't think this was a good idea, but I still helped him make his weapons, and spy on people, and anything else he asked me to do. That doesn't make me a supporter or an accessory does it".

And again with applying the speech to situations that aren't comparable. You actually can't comprehend why Superman going bad is not relatable to some random person being able to build WMD.
Let's see. Building WMD's in your backyard isn't as easy as superman destroying a whole city. Superman IS a WMD. There are steps that MANY people, like the government, take to insure people can't build nukes in their homes. The superman problem is something only batman is qualified to solve. Still don't see the difference?
He's the one person who can do anything about this. He's the one with the kryptonite. It's NOT comparable to taking down someone being able to build a WMD. Not even a little bit.

It is totally comparable. Whether one threat is easier than another to carry out makes not one iota of a different. The fact is the threat is there. It potentially exists. Which is the whole basis for Batman's moronic logic in doing this. There is a teeny tiny potential for this threat. Whether one threat is easier than another to carry out doesn't matter. It can still happen, which is the whole entire point.

Why is Batman the one person who can do this? If he can weaponize Kryptonite then so can someone else with some smarts. Why not share the weaponry and let the world be ready to strike should Superman turn bad, instead of lashing out with a crazy murder plan based on something that probably won't even happen at all?

You keep repeating the same sentence. "His murder plot based on a tiny possibility". Not even taking into consideration that the tiny possibility could be the worse thing to ever happen to mankind. Batman doesn't like him, superman causes trouble wherever he goes, and he should still just wait and see? You haven't explained to me anything other than "it's small chance". Let's completely ignore all context. All the events that happen around superman in this movie and the last one, all the bushing of buttons. You're literally just looking at one line and ignoring everything that happens around it.

All the events in the movie lend no credence at all to this idiotic scheme. Superman causes trouble so he needs to die? LOL and what does Batman cause? He's the one the law is hunting down. You can't and you don't make life and death decisions on something with such small certainty and chance. Further more it's not the only course of action that could be put into place should the unlikely happen some time in the future.

And don't give me that ******** of standing on it's own merits. That's not what it's about. It's about hypocrisy. Excepting moronic arguments in other films but criticizing it in another. Revealing your one sided view and bias. Which you already revealed with the alfred thing which actually made my jaw drop. Someone can actually be that ignorant. Character spends whole movie trying to convince someone to not do something, oh wait he's actually supporting him!

That's exactly what this is about. If you cannot defend a movie on it's own merits, without trying to compare it to other movies (your comparison of Batfleck to the other movie Batmen was the the most ridiculous) then the movie doesn't stand up to scrutiny because a good movie doesn't need to be compared to defend it's story and characters.

Btw you're so dramatic. "You made my jaw drop. I spat my drink out. I am in shock" etc. You're so easily ruffled aren't you. Poor sensitive thing. This forum can't be good for your health.

im ****ing dead

See what I mean

And the martha thing. oohhh boy. let me guess. That whole scene is just about the word martha right?

I really think they'd look great on you. Just don't spit your drink out on them when you're reading this forum and see someone say this movie sucks.

 

[JOE]

^

 

[chamber-music]

Bruce didn't mess up the train controls. Ra's did. Anyone who was killed by the exploding house wasn't intentional. I think that's an important distinction for some people. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Yep. For some reason a lot of people seem to miss that Ra's deliberately destroyed the controls of the the train with his sword so that the train could not be stopped.

Ra's was going to die either way.

Blowing up the ninjas was manslaughter.

 

[Sleiek]

And the martha thing. oohhh boy. let me guess. That whole scene is just about the word martha right?

Everytime I see/hear someone talk about the Martha moment, I just

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Hype Friendly version

I think the ironic thing is that the farmer probably died in the blast anyway.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Yep. For some reason a lot of people seem to miss that Ra's deliberately destroyed the controls of the the train with his sword so that the train could not be stopped.

Ra's was going to die either way.

Blowing up the ninjas was manslaughter.

Agreed.

Everytime I see/hear someone talk about the Martha moment, I just

Agreed. It such stupid moment that it make me roll my eyes too.

 

[Kanye West]

Why does not Batman kill the president of the United States? I mean even considering MoS climax that dude is responsible for a lot of death and destruction in the world on a scale you have never seen. I mean USA is the only country that has used nuclear(i know it is misspellt) weapons on cities. I trust these people much less than Superman any day.

the president doesn't single handedly decide when to drop nukes lmao

No one man has as much power as superman. No one. You think the president is more dangerous when gone bad than superman? ookk

 

[Kanye West]

Oh the denial...

Alfred continues to make weapons for Bruce, do all the tasks and chores to aid him in his murder quest. Voicing reservations to Bruce about his course of action is not denying him his support. Alfred can make all the speeches he likes, he's still standing by Bruce helping him in his ludicrous homicidal mission.

Imagine this went to trial. "Well your honor I told him I didn't think this was a good idea, but I still helped him make his weapons, and spy on people, and anything else he asked me to do. That doesn't make me a supporter or an accessory does it".



It is totally comparable. Whether one threat is easier than another to carry out makes not one iota of a different. The fact is the threat is there. It potentially exists. Which is the whole basis for Batman's moronic logic in doing this. There is a teeny tiny potential for this threat. Whether one threat is easier than another to carry out doesn't matter. It can still happen, which is the whole entire point.

Why is Batman the one person who can do this? If he can weaponize Kryptonite then so can someone else with some smarts. Why not share the weaponry and let the world be ready to strike should Superman turn bad, instead of lashing out with a crazy murder plan based on something that probably won't even happen at all?



All the events in the movie lend no credence at all to this idiotic scheme. Superman causes trouble so he needs to die? LOL and what does Batman cause? He's the one the law is hunting down. You can't and you don't make life and death decisions on something with such small certainty and chance. Further more it's not the only course of action that could be put into place should the unlikely happen some time in the future.



That's exactly what this is about. If you cannot defend a movie on it's own merits, without trying to compare it to other movies (your comparison of Batfleck to the other movie Batmen was the the most ridiculous) then the movie doesn't stand up to scrutiny because a good movie doesn't need to be compared to defend it's story and characters.

Btw you're so dramatic. "You made my jaw drop. I spat my drink out. I am in shock" etc. You're so easily ruffled aren't you. Poor sensitive thing. This forum can't be good for your health.



See what I mean

I really think they'd look great on you. Just don't spit your drink out on them when you're reading this forum and see someone say this movie sucks.

That's always been alfred's role to bruce. He's a father figure but he is technically his butler. Alfred wit and irons' performance shows he's doing everything reluctantly because he can't really say no. He can only argue with him that he's wrong.

Ignoring the basic idea that yes it's a small chance (which it isn't necessarily from bruce's perspective because of everything he's seen associated with superman, the death/destruction) but the result is so catastrophic, the worst thing that could ever happen to mankind, that it's not something worth taking a chance on. All of us are ****ed if this already uncertain, mixed figure goes a bit the wrong way. Comparisons don't apply because there simply isn't anything else as dangerous as superman. Not even close. One person can't make enough nukes to destroy/enslave the world. That really is the central argument that this is stupid because theres so many other things it applies to. It doesn't. Nothing comes close to superman. Explain to me logically how anything else that is physically possible of happening as much as a rogue superman (someone the world/bruce is ALREADY suspicious and uncertain about). It's so damn simple.


Aside from the fact that my dramatic remarks are highly exaggerated. You're right, this forum can be mentally damaging which is why I don't expose myself to it for more than like 20 mins a day.


And I'd buy a shirt about that scene if it correctly explained the scene, which that shirt doesn't do.

 

[sf2]

Oh the denial...

Alfred continues to make weapons for Bruce, do all the tasks and chores to aid him in his murder quest. Voicing reservations to Bruce about his course of action is not denying him his support. Alfred can make all the speeches he likes, he's still standing by Bruce helping him in his ludicrous homicidal mission.

Imagine this went to trial. "Well your honor I told him I didn't think this was a good idea, but I still helped him make his weapons, and spy on people, and anything else he asked me to do. That doesn't make me a supporter or an accessory does it".



It is totally comparable. Whether one threat is easier than another to carry out makes not one iota of a different. The fact is the threat is there. It potentially exists. Which is the whole basis for Batman's moronic logic in doing this. There is a teeny tiny potential for this threat. Whether one threat is easier than another to carry out doesn't matter. It can still happen, which is the whole entire point.

Why is Batman the one person who can do this? If he can weaponize Kryptonite then so can someone else with some smarts. Why not share the weaponry and let the world be ready to strike should Superman turn bad, instead of lashing out with a crazy murder plan based on something that probably won't even happen at all?



All the events in the movie lend no credence at all to this idiotic scheme. Superman causes trouble so he needs to die? LOL and what does Batman cause? He's the one the law is hunting down. You can't and you don't make life and death decisions on something with such small certainty and chance. Further more it's not the only course of action that could be put into place should the unlikely happen some time in the future.



That's exactly what this is about. If you cannot defend a movie on it's own merits, without trying to compare it to other movies (your comparison of Batfleck to the other movie Batmen was the the most ridiculous) then the movie doesn't stand up to scrutiny because a good movie doesn't need to be compared to defend it's story and characters.

Btw you're so dramatic. "You made my jaw drop. I spat my drink out. I am in shock" etc. You're so easily ruffled aren't you. Poor sensitive thing. This forum can't be good for your health.



See what I mean

I really think they'd look great on you. Just don't spit your drink out on them when you're reading this forum and see someone say this movie sucks.

cool t-shirts. btw, joker, you can say/apply the similar things to almost all batman movies, animations n comics.

 

[sf2]

Seriously joker, u r asking batman to hang his cape n believe in the government n the police. Lol. U r joker indeed.

 

[MaceB]

The Joker - while I agree that Bruce's whole thought process was contrived and pretty much nonsensical, I think that the creative team was trying to portray Bruce as emotionally compromised. His thinking was incredibly stupid, but that's because his judgement was clouded by hate.
The destruction of Metropolis basically brought all these unresolved feelings about his parents to the top of his psyche, and as a result, he was acting irrationally. I think that's what the movie wanted to portray at least.

Did it do a great job of it? No, I don't think so.... like most things in the film, the point got muddled and lost in the shuffle.

 

[The Joker]

That's always been alfred's role to bruce. He's a father figure but he is technically his butler. Alfred wit and irons' performance shows he's doing everything reluctantly because he can't really say no. He can only argue with him that he's wrong.

Ignoring the basic idea that yes it's a small chance (which it isn't necessarily from bruce's perspective because of everything he's seen associated with superman, the death/destruction) but the result is so catastrophic, the worst thing that could ever happen to mankind, that it's not something worth taking a chance on. All of us are ****ed if this already uncertain, mixed figure goes a bit the wrong way. Comparisons don't apply because there simply isn't anything else as dangerous as superman. Not even close. One person can't make enough nukes to destroy/enslave the world. That really is the central argument that this is stupid because theres so many other things it applies to. It doesn't. Nothing comes close to superman. Explain to me logically how anything else that is physically possible of happening as much as a rogue superman (someone the world/bruce is ALREADY suspicious and uncertain about). It's so damn simple.

You keep saying there's nothing as dangerous as Superman, but all he's seen of Superman is cause some mass destruction which cost countless lives. Osama Bin Laden was capable of the same thing, and did so in one of the worst events in human history. Never mind the fact that Superman was fighting the real threat in this destruction fest.

But Batman's brilliant logic is there's a tiny million to one chance that Superman might turn bad and become the worst threat ever, so he's got to die. That's idiotic. You don't make life and death decisions based on something that is not a certainty, and is extremely unlikely. Batman, and no sane or logical person, does such a thing.

It doesn't work, and just makes Batman look like a loony idiot.

Aside from the fact that my dramatic remarks are highly exaggerated. You're right, this forum can be mentally damaging which is why I don't expose myself to it for more than like 20 mins a day.

If you really believed this forum was so bad, you wouldn't be coming back here at all, let alone on a daily basis. Nobody willingly spends any time in a place they think is stupid. Unless they're stupid themselves.

And I'd buy a shirt about that scene if it correctly explained the scene, which that shirt doesn't do.

Of course it does. That's why this thing has spread so much into merchandise. It's one of the stupidest and funniest scenes ever. It's mocking value is so great it's worth being put on t-shirts.

cool t-shirts. btw, joker, you can say/apply the similar things to almost all batman movies, animations n comics.

No, you couldn't. Except for maybe Batman and Robin.

Seriously joker, u r asking batman to hang his cape n believe in the government n the police. Lol. U r joker indeed.

Where did I say Batman should hang up his cape? How does expecting Batman not to be a murderous idiot equate to him quitting and believing in the government?

The Joker - while I agree that Bruce's whole thought process was contrived and pretty much nonsensical, I think that the creative team was trying to portray Bruce as emotionally compromised. His thinking was incredibly stupid, but that's because his judgement was clouded by hate.
The destruction of Metropolis basically brought all these unresolved feelings about his parents to the top of his psyche, and as a result, he was acting irrationally. I think that's what the movie wanted to portray at least.

Did it do a great job of it? No, I don't think so.... like most things in the film, the point got muddled and lost in the shuffle.

I know what the movie was trying to portray. Trouble is it doesn't work on any level. No execution can make idiocy work. It's like when bad writing tries to use the excuse of someone is crazy, so they can be written as stupid as they like. They were never going to be able to make a good job of it.

 

[MaceB]

I know what the movie was trying to portray. Trouble is it doesn't work on any level. No execution can make idiocy work. It's like when bad writing tries to use the excuse of someone is crazy, so they can be written as stupid as they like. They were never going to be able to make a good job of it.

My point is that it was supposed to be an idiotic decision. It came from a place of irrational emotionality, not logic.. as you're trying to apply. Yes, it was executed badly, but you're trying to apply logical consistency to an emotional illogical paradigm. It's not as if Bruce's decision made sense. It wasn't supposed to. What the movie got wrong was not allowing the audience to understand the inconsistencies in Bruce's flawed, emotional state by spelling it out well enough. Instead, the movie portrayed Bruce's thought process as if it had merit and as if we were supposed to take it seriously. That was the true problem of execution.

 

[The Joker]

My point is that it was supposed to be an idiotic decision. It came from a place of irrational emotionality, not logic.. as you're trying to apply. Yes, it was executed badly, but you're trying to apply logical consistency to an emotional illogical paradigm. It's not as if Bruce's decision made sense. It wasn't supposed to. What the movie got wrong was not allowing the audience to understand the inconsistencies in Bruce's flawed, emotional state by spelling it out well enough. Instead, the movie portrayed Bruce's thought process as if it had merit and as if we were supposed to take it seriously. That was the true problem of execution.

If your point is that the movie is saying Bruce is an over emotional idiot, and what he is doing doesn't make a lick of sense, then they did an outstanding job of making Batman an idiot.

10/10 for that.

 

[MaceB]

If your point is that the movie is saying Bruce is an over emotional idiot, and what he is doing doesn't make a lick of sense, then they did an outstanding job of making Batman an idiot.

10/10 for that.

Well, I do think part of the point of the film's message was that emotionality and dealing with the past can interfere with one's intent to do good.....so yes..? It certainly wasn't done as well as I would have hoped, but whether on not one can stay a hero despite trauma and the unforeseen consequences of ones actions was the intended didactic message of the film. Not done exceptionally well, but that was a big part of the narrative's intent. You don't need to be so obtuse you know. It's not like I'm asking you to like the movie. ... I'm agreeing with you that it was done poorly.

 

[The Joker]

Well, I do think part of the point of the film's message was that emotionality and dealing with the past can interfere with one's intent to do good.....so yes..? It certainly wasn't done as well as I would have hoped, but whether on not one can stay a hero despite trauma and the unforeseen consequences of ones actions was the intended didactic message of the film. Not done exceptionally well, but that was a big part of the narrative's intent. You don't need to be so obtuse you know. It's not like I'm asking you to like the movie. ... I'm agreeing with you that it was done poorly.

You don't have to be so thin skinned. That was a dig at the movie, not you. Unless you're one of it's writers

 

[MaceB]

No worries. Im not personally upset by it. I just don't know why the Internet has to be filled with combative discussion instead of friendly disagreements.

 

[The Joker]

It's because some people can't handle seeing something they like get criticized. They take it personally and lash out. You should have seen the positive thread after it was made. The banning rate of supporters for this movie is the biggest I've seen post release of any movie. I've been here since 2003.

 

[Penguin]

It has probably been mentioned before, but if Batman does continue to kill in the other films, if he stops suddenly and does not kill Joker or the other rogues, then I’ll definitely end up resenting these films.

 

[wnjcwjkk]

Hype Friendly version

I think the ironic thing is that the farmer probably died in the blast anyway.

Haha yeah I always thought that was pretty funny. He was probably like "Wow, this guy's really fighting to save my life! Hey man, where you going?!?! OH GOD IT BURNS!!! AAAAGH!!!"