BvS The Unabashed SPOILER Thread. ENTER AT OWN RISK. - Part 1

[Rapunzel]

The thing about pales description, is that a ton of the stuff he stated, we've already seen in previews and bts. Now for some that might be enough to convince them that he's legit. but for me since most of these details are coming out after being confirmed somewhere else, makes me think hes carefully put together as much official info as possible and worked in obvious connect the dot theories. I'm not saying he's lying. But I'm skeptical.

I am too, but they seem more realistic than most.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Except Bruce has seen things that has affected him at a personal and fundamental level. If any one of us were in his position, I really doubt that we'll be able to have the inner strength to continue the no-kill ideology. Eventually, the "filth" gets the better of you. After all, Batman is still human despite his glorious features. Think of something like police officers or military men, they have seen some **** in their lives and some of them react very harshly as a result of the experience, while others may withdraw from society, and some may be caught in limbo, not knowing what to do with their lives after having gone through that traumatic experience. Another point of similarity is how the events of Bruce and Jim lying about Harvey, as well as Rachel's death in TDK resulting in Bruce becoming reclusive. People thought he shouldn't have retired but it made a lot of narrative sense and brought home the point about the man behind the mask being human.

In fact, it's not that easy to say "Batman should know better" and it's treating a grey area as if it should be black/white. For all we know, Snyder's Batman in his origin might have had a no-kill rule that degraded over time. Primarily because he witnessed how much more cruel criminals are, and that his way wasn't going to stop them from doing what they are doing. In the face of cruelty, maybe Batman feels that the only way he can save Gotham is by being cruel(er).

From a writer's POV, it would be an interesting way to communicate how Idealism can transform into Machiavellian ideology.

Well said.

 

[DaJanksta]

I'm also a little disappointed that Bruce's motivation for helping/trusting Supes seems to stem from his trauma, not anything Supes does. Kinda wanted Supes' actions to change Bruce's mind, not Martha's existence.

I mean part of it is Superman though. He see's him as a human when he realizes he has a mom here. Plus the sacrifice at the end will probably be the biggest realization for batman. He will see Superman for who he really is.

 

[Rapunzel]

Except Bruce has seen things that has affected him at a personal and fundamental level. If any one of us were in his position, I really doubt that we'll be able to have the inner strength to continue the no-kill ideology. Eventually, the "filth" gets the better of you. After all, Batman is still human despite his glorious features. Think of something like police officers or military men, they have seen some **** in their lives and some of them react very harshly as a result of the experience, while others may withdraw from society, and some may be caught in limbo, not knowing what to do with their lives after having gone through that traumatic experience. Another point of similarity is how the events of Bruce and Jim lying about Harvey, as well as Rachel's death in TDK resulting in Bruce becoming reclusive. People thought he shouldn't have retired but it made a lot of narrative sense and brought home the point about the man behind the mask being human.

In fact, it's not that easy to say "Batman should know better" and it's treating a grey area as if it should be black/white. For all we know, Snyder's Batman in his origin might have had a no-kill rule that degraded over time. Primarily because he witnessed how much more cruel criminals are, and that his way wasn't going to stop them from doing what they are doing. In the face of cruelty, maybe Batman feels that the only way he can save Gotham is by being cruel(er).

From a writer's POV, it would be an interesting way to communicate how Idealism can transform into Machiavellian ideology.

Well said....you're right that it's not that simple. I have to remember that.

 

[Jumpman]

Doing the Death of Superman just seems very wasteful in this film, especially considering everyone knows Superman is back in Justice League. So really what's the point? Like "Oh he's totally dead guys. We're being serious."

Will you say the same after watching CIVIL WAR?

 

[Limonade]

I see this argument from time to time. This isn't that comics. It's the movies. If you want the comics, they're still here. Thy movies are based on the DC universe. That's it. It's gonna be different.

Oh trust me brother, I've seen all of DC movies as well. I enjoyed the animated movies as well. The liberties they are taking for Batman and Superman are at the core level which shapes this universe.

 

[rescrunch]

Except Bruce has seen things that has affected him at a personal and fundamental level. If any one of us were in his position, I really doubt that we'll be able to have the inner strength to continue the no-kill ideology. Eventually, the "filth" gets the better of you. After all, Batman is still human despite his glorious features. Think of something like police officers or military men, they have seen some **** in their lives and some of them react very harshly as a result of the experience, while others may withdraw from society, and some may be caught in limbo, not knowing what to do with their lives after having gone through that traumatic experience. Another point of similarity is how the events of Bruce and Jim lying about Harvey, as well as Rachel's death in TDK resulting in Bruce becoming reclusive. People thought he shouldn't have retired but it made a lot of narrative sense and brought home the point about the man behind the mask being human.

In fact, it's not that easy to say "Batman should know better" and it's treating a grey area as if it should be black/white. For all we know, Snyder's Batman in his origin might have had a no-kill rule that degraded over time. Primarily because he witnessed how much more cruel criminals are, and that his way wasn't going to stop them from doing what they are doing. In the face of cruelty, maybe Batman feels that the only way he can save Gotham is by being cruel(er).

From a writer's POV, it would be an interesting way to communicate how Idealism can transform into Machiavellian ideology.

True. But wouldn't it overcomplicates things in the future? Batman is a character whose existence is mostly defined by certain moral codes. If they decided to bring Red Hood in the Bat solo as rumoured, having a Batman who killed/branded criminals would be a big question mark, as their initial conflict will be negated and Bruce could come up as a big hypocrite.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

I just don't know what to believe anymore.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I just don't know what to believe anymore.

Don't believe everything you hear, son

 

[InJustice]

True. But wouldn't it overcomplicates things in the future? Batman is a character whose existence is mostly defined by certain moral codes. If they decided to bring Red Hood in the Bat solo as rumoured, having a Batman who killed/branded criminals would be a big question mark, as their initial conflict will be negated and Bruce could come up as a big hypocrite.

Not necessarily, if Red Hood is in the origin, then we're talking about a Batman who has a certain set of moral codes kept intact. The assumption then is that prior to BvS (and the point in which Bruce experienced a particular trauma that forced him into retirement), Batman was a much more idealistic and focused on putting bad guys down the clean way.

However, it all depends on how the creative team decide to write and portray Red Hood. Is he going to be the mirror image of Batman but with a hyperbrutal set of codes to bring the point about how Gotham should be saved? Or is he only going to engage in combat with Batman because he's angry that Batman "left him to die" and didn't go after the Joker?

 

[Rapunzel]

Oh trust me brother, I've seen all of DC movies as well. I enjoyed the animated movies as well. The liberties they are taking for Batman and Superman are at the core level which shapes this universe.

How does Supes dying change his core character?

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Don't believe everything you hear, son

Well played sir

 

[Gavan]

Pretty sure they said Cyborg wouldn't be a cyborg yet.

I the Batman fight scene in trailer 3 is allegedly him rescuing Ma Kent, why does he waste time beating up people when Alfred told him he could enter a floor without hostiles? If they were looking for a hostage and racing against the clock, he'd just swoop in and out if he could.

Bruce also tells Alfred that he's getting slow, which probably refers to the knife cut he took on his armor. That scene goes after the fight, no time for it before the very end.

That's why I'm not buying this.

 

[Jam2315]

I wanna know if we get the famous supes shirt rip scene (I doubt it) and do we get to see him use super/freeze breath (also doubt it)

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Pretty sure they said Cyborg wouldn't be a cyborg yet.

I the Batman fight scene in trailer 3 is allegedly him rescuing Ma Kent, why does he waste time beating up people when Alfred told him he could enter a floor without hostiles? If they were looking for a hostage and racing against the clock, he'd just swoop in and out if he could.

Bruce also tells Alfred that he's getting slow, which probably refers to the knife cut he took on his armor. That scene goes after the fight, no time for it before the very end.

That's why I'm not buying this.

I hope Bats doesn't rescue Ma.

 

[InspecktahDeck]

It's part of the news montage that begins with the day of the dead scene. Superman rescuing people from the flood, and superman pulling a large ship across a tundra are in the same sequence. This is Supes trying to prove himself after taking the blame for the Africa incident, and the kryptonian attack. This is where you get real news people like Nancy Grace and Neil deGrasse Tyson weighing in on the necessity of superman. The rocket is just one small moment with no context.

I really don't wanna hear celebrities talking over Superman doing awesome ****. That'll ruin the scene for me.

 

[brandeezy89]

I think the fight scene has to do with Kryptonite in the truck and not Ma Kent

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

I really don't wanna hear celebrities talking over Superman doing awesome ****. That'll ruin the scene for me.

why?

 

[brandeezy89]

The more I read the more it seems like an well done fake. It seems like they waited until the peak of information was released to write it. There's too many things that don't add up

 

[Rapunzel]

The more I read the more it seems like an well done fake. It seems like they waited until the peak of information was released to write it

Explain more?

 

[ManofSteel37013]

The more I read the more it seems like an well done fake. It seems like they waited until the peak of information was released to write it

So he just made up the whole Jonathan Kent part and the entire witch being written on Martha when in the pictures of Superman and Lex we can clearly see Lex holding pictures and showing them to him. There is too much in this to be made up on the spot. Plus BoxofficeZ pretty much confirmed this on Boxofficetheory

 

[InspecktahDeck]

why?

I can't stand Nancy Grace, Anderson Cooper, or Neil Tyson. They've all done or said things that are pretty *****ey in my opinion. I wouldn't even want celebrities I like to be in that scene.

It also kinda dates the movie a little too much. Real life celebs being mentioned in comics loses its meaning after a while.

 

[ManofSteel37013]

The truth is people who want this to be fake are the ones who just don't like what they are reading. In 2 days, maybe less we will know the truth and everyone will be coming back here saying this was legit.

 

[Rapunzel]

So he just made up the whole Jonathan Kent part and the entire witch being written on Martha when in the pictures of Superman and Lex we can clearly see Lex holding pictures and showing them to him. There is too much in this to be made up on the spot. Plus BoxofficeZ pretty much confirmed this on Boxofficetheory

Yeah, good writers make up details. I remember plenty of convincing spoilers for many other films. I don't judge truthfulness based on specifics. Anyone can create those.

Also, Costner being in the film seems shady.

 

[ConnorKon-El]

The truth is people who want this to be fake are the ones who just don't like what they are reading. In 2 days, maybe less we will know the truth and everyone will be coming back here saying this was legit.

Yep.