BvS The Unabashed SPOILER Thread. ENTER AT OWN RISK. - Part 4

[Wise]

Did anyone catch what Silas Stone said about the Mother Box?

I only caught that it was an ''object found in 1982''.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

The main problem I have with Batman killing people in BvS is that it begs the question of why is The Joker still alive in this universe if this Batman doesn't have a problem with murdering bad guys? So you mean to tell me he will straight up murder mooks in battle but will spare homicidal super villains just because the studio needs them for sequels?

 

[Plaidchuck]

The main problem I have with Batman killing people in BvS is that it begs the question of why is The Joker still alive in this universe if this Batman doesn't have a problem with murdering bad guys? So you mean to tell me he will straight up murder mooks in battle but will spare homicidal super villains just because the studio needs them for sequels?

Because Snyder didn't think that far ahead. Simple and scary as that.

 

[Mjölnir]

The main problem I have with Batman killing people in BvS is that it begs the question of why is The Joker still alive in this universe if this Batman doesn't have a problem with murdering bad guys? So you mean to tell me he will straight up murder mooks in battle but will spare homicidal super villains just because the studio needs them for sequels?

The characters in the movie do plenty of things with poor motivation, just because the movie demands it, so it seems to be in line with that.

 

[Supermanila]

Superman didn't really intend to fight Batman, we could see that from his initial approach. Supes only pushed Bats around to stop him from shooting all his arsenal at him. If it wasn't one-sided, Batman would likely be dead.

Yeah I mentioned this on my other post, Superman didn't really intend to fight Batman, and Snyder could've done a better job at showing this throughout the fight (as mentioned, Supes could be talking Batman out of the fight during the fight, or being defensive, or they could've shown much better how Superman can just toy with Batman but choose not to), instead, after passing through Batman's 2 traps, he was next seen busting Batman through buildings. He was as much at fault here for taking the fight to the next level. He could've flown high up or used superspeed where Batman would not be able to see him and just talk him out of it, and tell him about his mom being a hostage.

I fully understand they had to fight, that's the title of the movie, it's what they're selling, all I'm saying was this fight is what this movie is really all about and it could've been so much more, but it was pretty underwhelming for me, and felt like a step down for Superman.

FWIW, I still liked the movie though as a whole. First act felt a bit slow for me, my friend actually slept through it.

 

[MrsKent26]

The main problem I have with Batman killing people in BvS is that it begs the question of why is The Joker still alive in this universe if this Batman doesn't have a problem with murdering bad guys? So you mean to tell me he will straight up murder mooks in battle but will spare homicidal super villains just because the studio needs them for sequels?

Maybe (if they actually want a decent explanation for it and not just sweep it under the rug) batman simply failed to kill the Joker because the clown is that badass. Maybe batman has been struggling to get rid of him for years.

Of course, I'd rather batman just not kill, but this is less bothersome than ignoring things or backtracking.

 

[Mayerlarch]

This is borrowed from a Devin Faraci article (I know) but he raised some of the same questions I had upon leaving the theater. Can someone help with some of these?

Why does anyone think Superman shot a whole bunch of people in Africa?

Why does Superman stop Batman in the middle of clearly chasing bad guys and let the bad guys get away?

Why does Superman fight Batman if he doesn’t want to fight Batman?

Why does Lois Lane go back for the spear?


(Original article: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03/24/10-questions-batman-v-superman-left-me-asking

 

[hafizbat]

The only reason a Batman/Joker story even works is BECAUSE of the no kill rule. In fact, none of the villains really make sense anymore for Batman. All he has to do is kill them now. Boom. Done.

It doesn't make sense to have a Batman/Joker story with the DCEU versions because the next time Batman lays his eyes on Joker he would shoot him on sight. I can't think of a compelling reason why this Batman should not, and I'm surprised he hasn't already.

I'm starting to think this whole universe just wasn't thought out very well.

 

[Plaidchuck]

Yeah I'm thinking the stuffed shirt execs thought this would be just some easy money and marketing without any actual effort put into it.

 

[OutOfBoose]

The main problem I have with Batman killing people in BvS is that it begs the question of why is The Joker still alive in this universe if this Batman doesn't have a problem with murdering bad guys? So you mean to tell me he will straight up murder mooks in battle but will spare homicidal super villains just because the studio needs them for sequels?

Because Batman is bitter and disappointed in the world. Who knows, maybe he didn't kill prior to that. Also, take notice, Batman kills only 3-5 heavily armed guys (during the chase and Batwing siege mostly, and it's not confirmed), and disarms and knockouts DOZENS. He mostly kills when it's absolutely necessary or can't be avoided, like with Martha.

 

[FVD]

Gotham and Metropolis are now across the street.

WHO KNEW?!

Yeah I believe Gotham has always been a neighbouring city to Metropolis, like New Jersey to it's NYC. There's a DC Map out there somewhere, locating where all the cities are, Central, Star and Coast Cities etc.

 

[jmc]

Because Batman is bitter and disappointed in the world. Who knows, maybe he didn't kill prior to that. Also, take notice, Batman kills only 3-5 heavily armed guys (during the chase and Batwing siege mostly, and it's not confirmed), and disarms and knockouts DOZENS. He mostly kills when it's absolutely necessary or can't be avoided, like with Martha.

He flat out stabs a guy in the chest.

 

[OutOfBoose]

He flat out stabs a guy in the chest.

I thought it was shoulder? And another one in the leg.

 

[Batmannerism]

BvS is so terrible that nobody is commenting on the facts that:

- They completely failed to address how killing Zod would lead to the no-kill rule, something which was promised, and nobody's calling them on that because there are bigger problems;
- Nobody is complaining that Superman killed Doomsday;

Dude, I get that you didn't like the film. I can totally appreciate that - I'm a massive fan of both Bats and Supes, have been since I was little, and I felt let down by the film.

Some people have loved it, and good for them, that's awesome - wish I loved it too.

Anyway, here's a though for some of you who, to me, sound like you were expecting a bit too much from this film.

This is a film called Batman v Superman, and that alone should tell you that it's not going to have an intricate plot that will hold up under incredibly close scrutiny (it's not INception, and even Inception has a bunch of holes in it....every movie does ).

I mean, I went in there and turned off my brain and so enjoyed the first hour. Hell, I totally ignored the fact that Batman killed people with machine guns - that didn't bother me one bit.
Because, all I wanted to see was a satisfying showdown between the leads and an action-packed final confrontation - But when Snyder couldn't pull off the third act convincingly, that's when I felt disappointed.
I was gutted because this movie didn't have to do too much to satisfy my requirements.... and still fell short.

My impression of your complaints and some of the other complaints is that some people were expecting something a bit more intellectually engaging that made a lot more sense - dudes, this was a film called Batman v Superman, and as such you have suspend disbelief (hell, real life doesn't make sense, particularly human motivations - which is why people were blowing themselves up in Brussels this week).

I'm not saying you're all wrong, e.g. it's true the "no killing rule" that Superman's thought to have (but doesn't really) could have come about, but they never go near it. But doesn't that seem like a nitpick, compared to the overall problems with editing and story ? I mean, the Dark Knight Rises was a masterpiece of pacing and flawless plot compared to B v S.

The performances in B v S were very good, but let down by a convoluted story, poor pacing, poor editing and ....can't believe I'm saying this.....ho-hum action choreography in it's two most important set-pieces ( true, the Batman v thugs scene was awesome, but Bats v Supes, and Bats+Supes+WW v Doomsday were both a bit underwhelming - I can't believe that because with what Snyder achieved in Man of Steel, it's obvious he had the talent to make those fights captivating).

Again, I'm agreeing with you that this film was far from triumphant (and it really, really hurts me to say that because I had very high hopes for it and at the same time had set a very low bar for it to meet those hopes).

What I'm saying is that it seems like a waste of time complaining about the little faults, or peripheral problems with the movie when the big ones are so obvious - it's like a patient who has a gunshot wound in their chest complaining about their hangnail or skinned elbow.


But that's just me. Cheers. Going to go see B v S a second time and see if I like it better, now that the hype has faded.

 

[jmc]

I thought it was shoulder? And another one in the leg.

Looked like his chest to me.

 

[smsvmos]

He flat out stabs a guy in the chest.

He stabs the guy in the shoulder. That won't kill him.

 

[BattleAngel]

\It doesn't make sense to have a Batman/Joker story with the DCEU versions because the next time Batman lays his eyes on Joker he would shoot him on sight. I can't think of a compelling reason why this Batman should not, and I'm surprised he hasn't already.

Hafizbat... I have been laughing for months at all the Joker=Jason Todd conspiracy theorists, but this is literally the only explanation I can come up with for why MurderBat wouldn't just kill him on sight.

 

[jmc]

He stabs the guy in the shoulder. That won't kill him.

Perhaps I'm wrong then. Still, for all the complaining people made 8 years ago with regards to Batman and Harvey Dent's death I'm surprised no-one is batting that much of an eyelid over what the character does in this.

 

[Cats]

I thought it was shoulder? And another one in the leg.

I paid close attention to this. It was the shoulder, although he "pinned" the guy to the wall. Pretty brutal, but not fatal.

 

[Wise]

Even when they do, it still whizzes over their heads it seems.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. SMH.

Oh I heard it. But just because a General says. Oh it's safe, doesn't mean it's safe.

EMP anyone? They just sentenced everyone on life support and anyone in a chopper or plane over Gothametropolis to death.

 

[BattleAngel]

Perhaps I'm wrong then. Still, for all the complaining people made 8 years ago with regards to Batman and Harvey Dent's death I'm surprised no-one is batting that much of an eyelid over what the character does in this.

...this is why Donald Trump has a serious shot at being our next President. People are

I am relieved to hear a trusted name on this thread (Hafizbat said it too) voice this opinion. I had a big problem with Bale's character killing people in TDK trilogy but it seems forgivable in comparison... The character I know from the comics would have the DCEU Batman locked up in Arkham.

 

[hafizbat]

Hafizbat... I have been laughing for months at all the Joker=Jason Todd conspiracy theorists, but this is literally the only explanation I can come up with for why MurderBat wouldn't just kill him on sight.

I would have thought that is a ridiculous idea and would never happen, but golly after what they've done to Batman it wouldn't even surprise me.

I paid close attention to this. It was the shoulder, although he "pinned" the guy to the wall. Pretty brutal, but not fatal.

Even getting stabbed in the leg can be fatal. Getting impaled in the upper body with no medical attention (you think Batman is going to call the ambulance for this guy?) is almost certainly fatal. Make no mistake, the shoulder contains crucial nerves and blood vessels that directly take blood up to the brain. It's where the brachial plexus is, if I remember my anatomy correctly.

 

[MrsKent26]

So does batman kill or not? Or maybe he's just brutal?

As someone who believes he shouldn't, I would like to prepare myself and there seems to be mixed thoughts in here...

 

[OutOfBoose]

Perhaps I'm wrong then. Still, for all the complaining people made 8 years ago with regards to Batman and Harvey Dent's death I'm surprised no-one is batting that much of an eyelid over what the character does in this.

He killed in much adored '89, he killed in Returns, he killed Harvey Dent, he allowed Catwoman do all the dirty work for him in TDKR (also if I remember correctly, he shoot the convoy with his the Bat), and he kills here too when there's no other way. I don't know what's so new about it and why people should keep complaining.

 

[FVD]

Sounds like the Opening Scene in Africa will be elaborated on the the 'Ultimate Cut.' Hopefully more lines from Jimmy too. As for the Daily Planet with Perry wanting Clark to write a sports piece, I ask again what happened to Steve Lombard who was in MoS and like in the comics, isn't he a sportswriter for the Planet? I'm sure he didn't die. Maybe he'll appear in the UC in a minor role.

http://collider.com/batman-v-superm...ersocial&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social